PDA

View Full Version : Hey Oleg or Maddox Games... Can you explain me this ?



XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:47 PM
nt

http://www.treffnix.onlinehome.de/3.jpg




http://www.rolfwolf.de/sig/sig.jpg

Message Edited on 09/19/0310:52PM by RolfWolf

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:47 PM
nt

http://www.treffnix.onlinehome.de/3.jpg




http://www.rolfwolf.de/sig/sig.jpg

Message Edited on 09/19/0310:52PM by RolfWolf

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 11:52 PM
Ah jetzt.

FM's are accurate, 100%./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Youss states about accuracy of the FM's in one sentence, in the next sentence he talkes about game balance. That doesn't sounds like a SIM, that rather sounds we got a mickey-mouse patch.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/



Message Edited on 09/19/0311:56PM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:15 AM
*Sigh*

Since when did FM or DM count as a 'balance' factor?

The really frustrating thing is the one-sided info/contact some parts of the community are in with 1C, while the means of contact and discussion on the other side seems to be cut off.

We have no way of knowing whether Youss is making things up, mis-interpreting 1C's decision to us, or if it really is a 'balance' issue - which of course, cannot be confirmed until the developers themselves explain it to us(which I think, is very unlikely).

The results are confusion, loss of trust, and more complaints and whines.

....


I don't know how that guy is authorized to gain access to such internal information in the first place - no matter how close one personally is to the developers, some things, the developers should not throw around to outsiders, unless they are willing to explain every confusion revolving around the disclosed info in person.

The rest of the community, in many ways every-bit professional, trusting and faithful, are left out side, while it seems clearly in some parts of decision making the other small, secretive group of outsiders has a pretty influential voice/opinion. It's a very unprofessional act, and quite a messy issue if it ever turns into a debate(which I think, it will soon..) - especially it involves unveiling a truth to the worse.

....

If it really is the latter, then it's a very very disappointing thing.

"Balance" has no coherence with the FM or DM. "Balancing" the FM or DM obviously can mean only one thing - neutering/porking - and it's a really big no-no to use in simulation genre.

A very BIG no-no.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:18 AM
kweassa, go click in that thread at the VOW-site. You'll be staggered about the written stuff from Youss.



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:18 AM
Sturmovik isn't a sim anymore... /i/smilies/16x16_robot-sad.gif

its an arcade multplayer.online-game with about 120 planes. FMs are not historically correct.. no, game "BALANCE" (i hate this word) is important... and oleg & team aren't interested in the opinions of the "real" fans.



sorry, but.... thats my opinion: and i do not think that i'm wrong...

in IL-2 times oleg was always here in the ready room; you could discuss with him (the answer was usually "you is wrong" /i/smilies/16x16_robot-happy.gif ) but he always said that IL-2/FB are the most realistic flight sims....

IL-2 version 1.2 is as good as FB 1.11 -- the sound is even better

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:23 AM
Who is Dimas?

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:38 AM
pls keep in mind, YOUSS isnt making an oficial announcemant from MaddoxGames !!

so, so strange it sounds, keep it low /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:41 AM
JG53Frankyboy wrote:
- pls keep in mind, YOUSS isnt making an oficial
- announcemant from MaddoxGames !!
-
- so, so strange it sounds, keep it low /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
<img
- src="http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/
- diverses/franky.gif">
-

But it´s look he has some influce to Maddox Games.
At least he pretend it in some sort of way in his posts at the VOW Forums.

http://www.rolfwolf.de/sig/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:56 AM
"But it´s look he has some influce to Maddox Games" perhaps, ore better hopefully, only in our minds /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:04 AM
Let´s wait, and let us see what happends /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

JG53Frankyboy wrote:
- "But it´s look he has some influce to Maddox Games"
- perhaps, ore better hopefully, only in our minds/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.rolfwolf.de/sig/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:50 AM
Given a fair degree of accuracy (which I feel FB has), balance is irrelevant in a WW2 sim/game.

If there was any balance in real life it was coincidental to the fact that both sides were actually trying to wipe each other out.

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


She turned me into a newt, but I got better.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:09 AM
The "game balance" quote was only his opinion on the issue.

A couple of pages later, over here: http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=160 he has this to say:

=RU=Youss
#Posts: 152

RegDate: 16.04.2003
Location: Belarus

Posted: Fri 19.09.2003 20:44 Title:
Correct? Real? About what you talked?
You got maximal accurate model of BF109. And what?

About what you talk on 17 pages?

"biased", "unreal", "overmodelled"...

What you want from BF? This is not genius crafts. This is one big compromise: need fighter for HIGH altitude for West front, and fighter for LOW altitude - for East Front.

Impossible make craft for this. This is noncompatible.
For high altitude fight need engine with first type optimisation, for low altitude fight need another optimisation.

BF was not genius at low alt. Where you make battle in VOW? 80% time in altitude less then 3000m.

1500-2500m is best altitude for Yaks, La. See to charts. Compare its with other datasource. Charts from game - calculated by FM v1.11. All BF have advantage at 5000m.

To all BF-whinners:
You not want real-specs. You want only easy kills, easy victoryes.

You write, write, write ... "unreal", "unreal", "unreal"...

And when Oleg make change for you - you begin cry about real?
Anybody there know - what is real? Anybody here was at BF in battle? You got real specs in 1.11 - but you dont like this.

I tide from this whinning. I'm tide from "specialist" like mr. Tom. He write:

"Isn´t it a Joke?!?!?!?
BTW: RPM at Emils has too be 2600 not 2300! Thts not a "little"! Thts near 20%!
And it could fly with 3000 RPM for 30 Seconds without Overheat!
Greatings!"

His stuped blaming about Emil make me LOL!

Technical specs of DB601E from original documentation:

On altitude before 4800m maximum
2400 (5 minutes);
2300 (30 minutes);
2200 (all time);

On altitude after 4800m maximum -
2400 (alltime);
3000 (30 sec before damage)

Pressure (1 ata = kg\sm3).
Max 1 minute - 1,4 ata;
Max 5 minutes - 1,3 ata;
Max 30 minutes - 1,2 ata;
no time limit - 1,15 ata;

Requested Oil: Aero Shell Mittel, Intava or Rotring.

Dear mr.Tom - where you found "3000 without overheat"? In you sexyal fantasion?

Dear mr.Tom - today you have strongly offended Oleg by the you letter. You sneered at it, you offended it, you have afforded indecent jokes in its address.

You got answer: "Do not write anymore to the this e-mail".

Oleg is too well brought up to be rude in the answer. As against you. Oleg not want talk with you anymore. Greatings! You got this.

In that case i'm would answer you much more roughly.

You got maximal correct model of FW. I do not hear here complaints about bad modelling FW190. But how so? Both planes are considered on the same FlightModel, on the the same equations, on the same sourcecode. Different only income values of specs.

If BF109 was so it is good, development FW190 what for was necessary? Why in 1943 FW190 have made 60% of release of all single-motor fighters in Germany?

Many players have written letters with complaints to difficulty of conducting fight on BF109. And when Oleg to them have gone towards - have made changes. I do not know why Oleg has chosen such decision. "The gamebalance" is only my personal opinion.

Now complaints begin - "we do not want balance, we want a reality". But in fact you already have a reality! Only this reality is not pleasant to you! Do you know sim where FM calculate more accuracy?

It is game. Let's receive pleasure from it.

I am tired to read this forum. At each pilot have personal opinion what should be BF109 - and noone why knew - what BF109 was in real.

I shall not write any more here.

Who wants to continue conversation in constructive sense - welcome in e-mail.

__________________________________________________ _________________________________________


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:13 AM
clint-ruin wrote:=RU=Youss
- #Posts: 152
-
-
- RegDate: 16.04.2003
- Location: Belarus


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


AMEN! This hits the nail flat on the head!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:37 AM
Bought three copies of original Il-2, bought two of FB, all at full price. Next one I'll wait until it hits half price and be picking up my solo copy.

Put that in the pipe and smoke it./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:39 AM
"Technical specs of DB601E from original documentation:

On altitude before 4800m maximum
2400 (5 minutes);
2300 (30 minutes);
2200 (all time);

On altitude after 4800m maximum -
2400 (alltime);
3000 (30 sec before damage)

Pressure (1 ata = kg\sm3).
Max 1 minute - 1,4 ata;
Max 5 minutes - 1,3 ata;
Max 30 minutes - 1,2 ata;
no time limit - 1,15 ata;"


And the BMWs, Klimovs, AShs and Merlins got their data right?

I think not.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:52 AM
Here it folks the reason plain and simple. IL-2 has gained tremendous publicity from many sorces. Causing many new gamers who have never ventured into the flighsim genre to buy this game. Oleg and his team has opted for balance instead of realism to keep these newbies. They dont want newbies getting frustrated and uninstalling it from there harddrives which will leave no hope for them to buy any new games in the IL-2 series. Its all about the $$$. Many other devlopers and publishers have done this. They abandon there dedicated fan base in the "nitch" market to get little kids to tell there parents they was IL-2 for Christmas. Hey! I just call them as I see them /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:16 PM
I'd like to see what Youss has for engine specs on VVS planes just for completeness.

There are different kinds of balance. If one set of planes is modelled real with all disadvantages including unfortunate forced poor view here or there while another set only disadvantages where they are widely known to have been and never corrected by field mod or factory revisions --- then a realism balance is violated. Not game but realism.

I do think that many have made mistakes regarding the 109's in demanding more because they see themselves being outstripped online. The fix asked for further violates realism while seeking to adjust balance by unreal vs unreal where WTH, might as well have the game-type balance.

It'd be nice if the toggles include "unreal game balanced flight models and engines" but I don't think many servers would use it. The people who want more want the stamp of approval and bragging rights of full real where real is what they really think because they think they are right. Is that only in the west?

The insults... mostly borne of frustration is perhaps not understood but definitely not smiled upon, I know I wouldn't. And smilies don't excuse name calling except between personal friends or between jacka$$ jokers.


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:44 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- The "game balance" quote was only his opinion on the
- issue.
-
- A couple of pages later, over here: <a
- href="http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&a
- ction=topic&id=1830&start=160"
- target=_blank>http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page
- =forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=160</a> he has
- this to say:
-
- =RU=Youss
- #Posts: 152
-
-
- RegDate: 16.04.2003
- Location: Belarus
-
-
- Posted: Fri 19.09.2003 20:44 Title:
-
- Correct? Real? About what you talked?
- You got maximal accurate model of BF109. And what?
-
- About what you talk on 17 pages?
-
- "biased", "unreal", "overmodelled"...
-
- What you want from BF? This is not genius crafts.
- This is one big compromise: need fighter for HIGH
- altitude for West front, and fighter for LOW
- altitude - for East Front.
-
- Impossible make craft for this. This is
- noncompatible.
- For high altitude fight need engine with first type
- optimisation, for low altitude fight need another
- optimisation.
-
- BF was not genius at low alt. Where you make battle
- in VOW? 80% time in altitude less then 3000m.
-
- 1500-2500m is best altitude for Yaks, La. See to
- charts. Compare its with other datasource. Charts
- from game - calculated by FM v1.11. All BF have
- advantage at 5000m.
-
- To all BF-whinners:
- You not want real-specs. You want only easy kills,
- easy victoryes.
-
- You write, write, write ... "unreal", "unreal",
- "unreal"...
-
- And when Oleg make change for you - you begin cry
- about real?
- Anybody there know - what is real? Anybody here was
- at BF in battle? You got real specs in 1.11 - but
- you dont like this.
-
- I tide from this whinning. I'm tide from
- "specialist" like mr. Tom. He write:
-
- "Isn´t it a Joke?!?!?!?
- BTW: RPM at Emils has too be 2600 not 2300! Thts not
- a "little"! Thts near 20%!
- And it could fly with 3000 RPM for 30 Seconds
- without Overheat!
- Greatings!"
-
- His stuped blaming about Emil make me LOL!
-
- Technical specs of DB601E from original
- documentation:
-
- On altitude before 4800m maximum
- 2400 (5 minutes);
- 2300 (30 minutes);
- 2200 (all time);
-
- On altitude after 4800m maximum -
- 2400 (alltime);
- 3000 (30 sec before damage)
-
- Pressure (1 ata = kg\sm3).
- Max 1 minute - 1,4 ata;
- Max 5 minutes - 1,3 ata;
- Max 30 minutes - 1,2 ata;
- no time limit - 1,15 ata;
-
- Requested Oil: Aero Shell Mittel, Intava or Rotring.
-
-
-
- Dear mr.Tom - where you found "3000 without
- overheat"? In you sexyal fantasion?
-

- In that case i'm would answer you much more roughly.

- If BF109 was so it is good, development FW190 what
- for was necessary? Why in 1943 FW190 have made 60%
- of release of all single-motor fighters in Germany?
-
- Many players have written letters with complaints to
- difficulty of conducting fight on BF109. And when
- Oleg to them have gone towards - have made changes.
- I do not know why Oleg has chosen such decision.
- "The gamebalance" is only my personal opinion.

- Now complaints begin - "we do not want balance, we
- want a reality". But in fact you already have a
- reality! Only this reality is not pleasant to you!
- Do you know sim where FM calculate more accuracy?
-
- It is game. Let's receive pleasure from it.

wrong its a sim

- I am tired to read this forum. At each pilot have
- personal opinion what should be BF109 - and noone
- why knew - what BF109 was in real.

- I shall not write any more here. (Good)

And since when did you become an expert on how the 109 should be? are you trying to suggest that you are right and everyone else is wrong about the problems in 1.11?

It is plainly obvious you hate 109's so your credibility on the subject is ZERO.

Stop putting other people down for saying their is a problem UFO pilot, the majority here just want the FM's to be as realistic as poss for their fav ride regardless of type or nationality. Stop licking 1c's butt and stop polluting FM complaint threads with ur dribble....

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:18 PM
That's what I'm saying since they did told what's gonna be in the add-on. Il-2 is not a sim anymore. Offline and virtual WW2 players, who want the most realistic experience posible (although the most mature must recognize that this have limits and it's a game after all), are being relegated to zero by a new politics that wants to convert Il-2 FB mainly into a DF online arena. To make this a "balanced" game (in the vein of BF1942) they try not to make realistic FM and DM, but to compensate the lackings of some aircraft with the lackings of other, to avoid the apparition in online DF of clearly superior machines. This explains the shortcomings of Me 262 and other.

In a game that tries to recreate an armamentistic race, this is a deadly sin. I can't imagine the allies sending notes to Speer telling him that Germany was cheating with the use of reactor engines and rockets, and that they should not make them so good, to make the war more "balanced". /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- Dux Corvan -



http://www.theinformationminister.com/press.php?ID=612322300

</span></blockquote></font></td></tr>

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:27 PM
Johno,

How on earth do you manage to post here at all, given that you're clearly very close to functionally illiterate?

If you're going to block quote an entire long post, please, could you use the time you spend between quoting it and posting a couple of lines of semiliterate bile at the end, try and actually read the post in the first place?

Here's some extra help: The same man - who wrote the post - in the screenshot - at the top - of this thread - also wrote - the same post - which I quoted.

Did you really and truly not manage to recognise that, or are you just pulling my leg here?



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:04 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- What you want from BF? This is not genius crafts.
- This is one big compromise: need fighter for HIGH
- altitude for West front, and fighter for LOW
- altitude - for East Front.
-
- Impossible make craft for this. This is
- noncompatible.
- For high altitude fight need engine with first type
- optimisation, for low altitude fight need another
- optimisation.


So tell me, why is it that (practically) nobody seems to give a damn that this does not apply to soviet aircraft?

The 109 was _all_ about climb and high alt. Having short range and not much fuel to begin with (to put in them) they would wait till the 8th AF was fairly close, rocket up to meet them and try to shoot them down.

In FB, planes that are "supposedly" optimized for low level handling are also out running and out climbing everything from the LW, and doing so clear up through medium and high alt as well.

This is a glaring incondistency. Optimization is only ever brought up in a one sided fashion and is then carried around by people who either love (in the extreme sense) the game and/or it's developer, or, who hate the LW (their schools programmed them well obviously).

Youss's comments void themselves. Not impressed in the least. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:22 PM
Blitz,

Did you see my post to Johno? I'm not entirely certain, but it seems as if you're attributing Youss's post to me as well. Why?

Could you please load Il2Compare, or post a track file, of allied planes outrunning Bf109s/FW190s? Coz I'm looking at Il2Compare right now and from the 'speed at altitude' section, I'm not seeing that at all. Where should I look? For example, the only Yak's that are comparable with the BF109G6/AS, according to Il2Compare, are the 9U and 3. And even they're not faster at any altitude w/ boost. They look even worse Vs the K4. Same story with the La5 and La7. They may be able to climb to alt, but they can't stay fast up there, at least not from what I'm seeing. The La7 is just barely faster than the 190D9 at 2000m, which is the last it sees of it.

I'm totally prepared to be convinced here, but there's just no data. At all. Show me!




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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:09 PM
Hope that "game balance" line was just an opinion! If not my valuation of Il2 would drop significantly.

Perhaps I was only under an illusion when thinking the lofty goal to develop the 'most realistic flight sim' was driving its evolution.

Also, please note I do understand its "only a game", but I thought one that is trying to be real, restricted only by our pc capabilities, so on and so forth.

In other words-- I hope the prime directive has not been left in the dust.

Widgeon

Oh, and dont get the wrong impression. I very much enjoy the sim, just would like to believe in Santa still./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif





Message Edited on 09/20/0301:13PM by widgeon

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:16 PM
NOOO! What a waste of potential!

I REALLY hope someone will be able to break the FM-code that we could get a REALISTIC WW2 Flight sim. "Balanced"... Voi vittusaatana sent¤¤n perkele!

It is clear now that 1C COULD do it but it WILL NOT do it!

Regards:
A very disappointed and angry customer.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:26 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- Blitz,
-
- Did you see my post to Johno? I'm not entirely
- certain, but it seems as if you're attributing
- Youss's post to me as well. Why?
-
- Could you please load Il2Compare, or post a track
- file, of allied planes outrunning Bf109s/FW190s?
- Coz I'm looking at Il2Compare right now and from the
- 'speed at altitude' section, I'm not seeing that at
- all. Where should I look? For example, the only
- Yak's that are comparable with the BF109G6/AS,
- according to Il2Compare, are the 9U and 3. And even
- they're not faster at any altitude w/ boost.
- They look even worse Vs the K4. Same story with the
- La5 and La7. They may be able to climb to alt, but
- they can't stay fast up there, at least not from
- what I'm seeing. The La7 is just barely
- faster than the 190D9 at 2000m, which is the last it
- sees of it.
-
- I'm totally prepared to be convinced here, but
- there's just no data. At all. Show me!

Clint - I'm DDT. 1 of about 60 BlitzPigs. I know we haven't been around this board much in the last year, but I can't imagine we've gone that far into obscurity.

I think you need to re-read my post. It's clear that I did not attribute Youss's words to you. I did, however, attriubute an agreement of those words to you.

It's been weeks since I've really used a 190 or 109, however, the tests and data are available from a wide variety of people 'round here. If you haven't seen the data you seek then it is either because you haven't looked for it, or, wish to not see it. It really is that simple I'm afraid.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:40 PM
DDT,

I don't have the slightest idea whether Youss's comments are accurate or not - I asked Milo or anyone else to verify the numbers he spat out and they're apparently the real deal.

My interest is more in trying to stop another LuftWhiner 'big lie' campaign about this 'game balance' comment, before it gets entirely out of hand. "Oh no! IC are making the game balanced! It's not a sim!". You can read these comments all over.

Fact is, Youss has no idea why the 109s behave as they do now, and has said that he was simply giving his opinion on it. Which is interesting, given the way several people have tried to make him sound like some kind of apologist/close associate for Maddox. If he was, do you think he would've said something like that? Why?

I'm saddened to note that your evidence for allied AC outrunning LW planes is ... nothing. Post me a track, show it to me in Il2Compare, but don't refer me to anecdotes and wobbly text test figures on the forums. Show me something I can look at on my PC, with no innuendo about testing conditions. Don't you think it would be worthwhile to have hard evidence of these horrible, terrible, undermodelled, outrun LW planes? Is it more fun to have it as a matter of belief, where you're either in or out, a "hardcore LW fan" as you put it, or a "VVS whiner"? Facts that have concrete evidence behind them don't usually require someone to believe in them for them to be true.

Sorry about calling you Blitz, I was wondering about that :> Thanks DDT.


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:07 PM
DuxCorvan wrote:
- That's what I'm saying since they did told what's
- gonna be in the add-on. Il-2 is not a sim anymore.
- Offline and virtual WW2 players, who want the most
- realistic experience posible (although the most
- mature must recognize that this have limits and it's
- a game after all), are being relegated to zero by a
- new politics that wants to convert Il-2 FB mainly
- into a DF online arena. To make this a "balanced"
- game (in the vein of BF1942) they try not to make
- realistic FM and DM, but to compensate the lackings
- of some aircraft with the lackings of other, to
- avoid the apparition in online DF of clearly
- superior machines. This explains the shortcomings of
- Me 262 and other.

With respect, I cannot believe that. I recall Oleg upsetting a few on this board with his assertion that 1C's market research had revealed that only 5% of buyers use FB online. Given that 'game balance' is only an issue for the online crowd why would he annoy the majority of his customers by fiddling the flight models to placate a vocal minority? There's no commercial logic to it. I also happen to think it would be against his personal ethos- anyone who spends years researching FMs, ballistics, internal structures, damage effects etc. so as to re- create a vanished reality would have to have become the ultimate dollar- prostitute to suddenly junk all that in favour of 'balance'. Ye gods, I remember him arguing with Sami about which models of Sturmovik had flettner- type aileron tabs and which ones had trim tabs. He said he would research it further and correct the 3D models if errors were confirmed. Hardly the words of someone unconcerned about the integrity of his brainchild.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:20 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- I'm saddened to note that your evidence for allied
- AC outrunning LW planes is ... nothing. Post me a
- track, show it to me in Il2Compare, but don't refer
- me to anecdotes and wobbly text test figures on the
- forums. Show me something I can look at on my PC,
- with no innuendo about testing conditions. Don't
- you think it would be worthwhile to have hard
- evidence of these horrible, terrible, undermodelled,
- outrun LW planes? Is it more fun to have it as a
- matter of belief, where you're either in or out, a
- "hardcore LW fan" as you put it, or a "VVS whiner"?
- Facts that have concrete evidence behind them don't
- usually require someone to believe in them for them
- to be true.

I simply don't have time to spend running mind numbing test. I have other to do that for me. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Seriously, the tracks and tests and excel spreadsheets and test results and test result corroborations are out there on these fora. In the ORR in particular.

Have you simply not seen them? Or are you just ignoring them in favor of a track that has results you like?

I'm not baiting, I'm just asking as I don't understand how you could have your position if you are indeed not a fanboy as you had said earlier.


- Sorry about calling you Blitz, I was wondering about
- that :> Thanks DDT.

NP. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:20 PM
Wow...such upset about the use of a single word: "balance".

Balance HAS to be present in all games regardless of it being a simulation of reality or not. Why? Because, as the guy on that forum so put it, you have the same formula and calcuations being made for all planes...you have to balance the stuff out so it works as well as possible.

Perhaps thats a difficult concept to understand. Go develop a computer game with complicated variables and you'll start to understand.

Minor glitches aside, I've NEVER had problems with any of the FM's for the FW or a Bf or any of the Yak's, La's, whatever. There are some glitches...but before buying the game I was expecting major problems from many of these planes...reality for me has shown that there was very little in the way of descripancies...the problems have been blown totally out of proportion.

http://freespace.volitionwatch.com/icefire/icefire_tempest.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:28 PM
BlitzPig_DDT,

Clint-ruin is the biggest wanker I've come across in awhile. Doesn't matter what you say, he is going to argue with it. The sky is another color in his fantasy world so don't bother responding to him.

He makes all these statements about how everything in right and that there has been no evidence to the contrary, blah, blah, blah. When you bring up something that has been pointed out for days, he acts like it is brand new information. So he is either stupid, or has very selective interpretation. He sounds a lot like the Iraqi Information Minister. He's got the smug, deluded tone down perfectly.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:42 PM
Red_Harvest wrote:
- BlitzPig_DDT,
-
- Clint-ruin is the biggest wanker I've come across in
- awhile. Doesn't matter what you say, he is going to
- argue with it. The sky is another color in his
- fantasy world so don't bother responding to him.
-
- He makes all these statements about how everything
- in right and that there has been no evidence to the
- contrary, blah, blah, blah. When you bring up
- something that has been pointed out for days, he
- acts like it is brand new information. So he is
- either stupid, or has very selective interpretation.
- He sounds a lot like the Iraqi Information
- Minister. He's got the smug, deluded tone down
- perfectly.

All I did was ask you for a track file - politely, and several times. Same as DDT. Convince me, I said. Not with whining or some story about what happened to you online last night, but with a track file showing it. You got more and more bothered until it became clear that you have no intention of proving any of it and simply like to whinge. Boohoo.

It took me about 2 minutes - as a complete CEM newbie - to confirm that the F2 and G2 can reach their max listed speeds on the FB website, the F2 to the exact number, the G2 to within 10kmh. Maybe this is something I could manage better with CEM on or without a 100% fuel load, I don't know.

It's really that easy to do.

If the allied planes are outrunning the LW planes then it's very simple to prove. Won't take a minute.

If you want to go about proving your claims, post a track. They're fairly unarguable and as I said, I'm totally prepared to be convinced that this is happening, but not just on peoples say so.

If you want to bring a flamewar from the other thread over here, don't - do it there.

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:13 AM
Clint ruin if you only have attention to prove topspeeds you're easy to mislead. Do some testings on acceleration, lose of speed after dives or lose of speeds after zooms while climbing, even on slight turns. Then come in here again and tell what you tested and what the results are. I'm cusrious./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif General drop down of handling on the 109 family. Til now (IL-2 as well as for FB) is was to ascertain that with every patch the 109 were cut doen in performance, maybe after some whining of the Russian community, I don't know. Same effect is to see now with FB. All Beta patches, from Beta06 - 08- 1.1b, leaded to the conclusion about a strechening of the LW stuff in the higher speed bandwith, and a better behaviour of Russian stuff at lower speeds, as it was in reality. Then BIG SURPRISE with 1.11. The LW stuff is still fast, more of less, more less. But as goody, if you piloting LW, you cant keep up higher speed without endanger the engine to overheat. Small gimmick with big effect. The Emil which was known for good handling is a pure joke at the moment./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



"......und mein Herz steigt wie ein Falke in die Lüfte!"

EJGr.Ost Kimura

http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/image/ejgrost.gif


http://www.jagdgruppe-ost.de/Forums/



Message Edited on 09/21/0312:23AM by KIMURA

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 12:19 AM
KIMURA wrote:
- Clint ruin if you only have attention to prove
- topspeeds you're easy to mislead./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Do some testings on
- acceleration, lose of speed after dives or lose of
- speeds after zooms while climbing, even on slight
- turns. Then come in here again and tell what you
- tested and what the results are. I'm cusrious.


But is he able to do it? Everybody defending current FM did not show more knowledge than pulling the stick full in Yak3 and La7 and expect to kill everything that moves.
Clintruin do you realize that Bf109E and F should outturn Yak1, Lagg3'41 and MiG3 even at sea level? Is this news to you?


<center> http://www.stormbirds.com/images/discussion-main.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:01 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- All I did was ask you for a track file - politely,
- and several times.

I've never seen anything polite in your posts, LIAR. I've never sent out a track file, and really don't care to trade tracks with a ****** like you. I haven't looked at yours and have zero interest in them.

You can keep pulling your pud on the topic as much as you want, I'm not wasting time trying to prove anything to an avowed idiot.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:12 AM
And you believe people who can't even spell correctly?

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:33 AM
I think I'm begining to see why Oleg refuses to even talk to people who don't submit a track file showing what they claim is happening in the game.

Kimura, DDT said that Allied planes outrun their axis counterparts. I asked for a track file of this happening since Il2Compare shows no such thing. The top speeds speak for themselves. As far as I know, valid acceleration data is even harder to come by than relatively easy measurements like roll rate which seem to cause people so many, many troubles on these forums. If you've got data proving the way Il2s planes accelerate is wrong, do what the 1.11 readme says. Record it, show the data you think it conflicts with, and submit it to Maddox.

Huckles, I don't know why we're suddenly in a conversation about why Emils don't out-turn early yaks and mig3s. Additionally, you, not I, Huckles, were the one who decided to do performance testing by yanking back on the stick as hard as you could - unrecorded - and use that as the basis for ****ging off the majority of FBs flight models. Same advice to you as to Kimura above. Have you in fact done this?

In the last few days, I've seen claims that:

Lagg's don't overheat,
The Pe-2's engines are invincible, particularly from the rear aspect,
The FW190s armament is woefully underpowered,
The 109F2s 15mm cannon takes 30+ shots to down an I16,
The 109E4 through G6 can't hit their listed top speed,

and so on and so forth.

And you know what happens when I go to actually test these claims? They're all absolutely incorrect - verifiably, unarguably, totally wrong. There are indeed bugs in the LW planes performance, but for christs sake, would you people find the ones you can validate and record them, rather than repeating the same completely inaccurate claims time after time? How credible do you think that makes you look, really?

And you wonder why Oleg doesn't come here anymore.

RedHarvest, since you seem to insist on bringing a previous threads dispute into this thread, here's what I wrote to you, first of all, on the matter:


Red_Harvest wrote:
- clint-ruin wrote:
-- - There are some issues to do with some BF-109
-- models handling. The early models E4 through G2,
-- and G6/AS are fine.
-
- Incorrect. F through G6 series overheat rapidly and
- can't hit listed speeds (except perhaps the G6/AS).

Interesting, just played with the F4 then and was able to hold 630kmh TAS at 6000m just fine with the rads closed, CEM on, turbulence/etc off. Thought I'd check that I wasn't talking complete crap. Didn't even have to play with pitch or mix or anything. I'm a CEM newbie, only just started playing with it a couple of days ago in the process of playing with Joy2Key/NewView et al.

Why don't you give this a try yourself, I'll even swap tracks with you if you like. Il2Compare seems more or less right but from reading the various threads on it it's not "real" real data, just calculated, and it's missing a bunch of measurements [roll/turn rates with rad position] that would make it somewhat more useful.

Just also played with the G2 now, reached 656 steady at 7000m which is a whole 10kmh off the IL2-FB site data at http://www.il2sturmovik.com/games_elts/fb_aircraft.php

Not exactly orders of magnitude off.

Anyhow, invitation's there if you want to swap tracks, I'm prepared to be convinced that the LW can't possibly survive against the invincible soviet planes in 1.11, but it had better be bloody convincing stuff.


You seem to have this skewed perception that anyone who doesn't automatically believe you without any supporting evidence of any kind is being monsterously rude. I don't know why.

Are you a creation scientist?


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:56 AM
What about the climb rates?

G-10s at 100% out climbed by the follwing planes at 100%?

* P-47D-10, P-47D-22 (3tons heavier than the G-10)
* Yak-1(1940), Yak-1B(1942)
* I-16/24, /18 (pre '40 planes)
* P-39s (single stage supercharger)
* La-5(non-boosted ASh82)
* Bf109G-14 and the Bf109F-4 at all altitudes, by the E-4 and E-7 at many altitudes

..

This was repeatedly mentioned both in ORR, and VOW forums as I observed. No answers. Mr.Youss chose only to answer the glaringly obvious, and then fell silent and ignored the really important questions.

I agree people were onto him too harshly, and attacked in distasteful manner. But frankly, people tend to get angry when people ignore them.







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

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

Message Edited on 09/21/0303:56PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:43 AM
I am truly disappointed if we are now facing a world according to Youss. I wonder what happened to Oleg's comment about FM getting not changed because something feels wrong, instead he wanted to have arguments based on engineering knowledge.

It is obvious to me that Youss does not posses deeper knowledge in aeronautical engineerin nor in the matter of messerschmitt Bf-109. If he has a say in its FM I slowly start to loose faith, seriously.

However, just to be fair it is no use to poke deeper in each word and sentence that he wrote. He's not a native english speaker and sometimes the nuances come falsely across. (I mean the balance part here)

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

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:03 AM
- Dear mr.Tom - where you found "3000 without
- overheat"? In you sexyal fantasion?
-
- Dear mr.Tom - today you have strongly offended Oleg
- by the you letter. You sneered at it, you offended
- it, you have afforded indecent jokes in its address.
-
- You got answer: "Do not write anymore to the this
- e-mail".
-
- Oleg is too well brought up to be rude in the
- answer. As against you. Oleg not want talk with you
- anymore. Greatings! You got this.
-
- In that case i'm would answer you much more roughly.
-


I dont know, it sounds like YouSS has taken over as Oleg's personal spokesman. He has eluded to this in the past as well. Perhaps that is why there has been so much "To do" about his posting about balance. Just my opinion however.

On the other hand, I will make this statement once again. If all along we were told that the flight models were "Accurate" then why have they changed so much? Patches to fix sound or graphics glitches, better damage models, eye candy, or improved coding is one thing. But big changes in flight models are quite another. I mean, we ARE talking about a plane that has been around since beta, arent we? (In at least one form or another)

If the FM was correct in V1.0 (Right enough to release it I guess) then why is it so different in every patch? One of them had to be wrong, but we were told they were both accurate. There has to be an answer here somewhere, but I doubt you will hear anyone from the Dev team give you a good one. Instead, self proclaimed spokesmen tell us why. Which leaves people to think that something is "Rotten in Denmark."

And Clint, I really dont think the climb rates of the 109 are that far off. Not too far off to worry about. What I think everyone is perceiving is what I call the Air-Break-E-A-tor effect of the 109 rads. The thing doesnt overheat consistently with it's VVS counterparts, and that point has been brought up many times in the forum. In addition, the real life tests of the 109 were done with the radiators open. Those numbers cant be sustained or attained in this game with the radiators in their current state. So, once you start your climb, the VVS plane will eventually catch you because he doesnt suffer the same sort of heating issue or drag issue that you do. For a short period of time you are faster (As should be) but eventually, you better be prepared to be drug into a turn fight with a plane that just wont overheat like yours. (Although you could just dive away from them as I usually do - LOL) Thus, the people not paying enough attention to this issue would say, "My 109 isnt climbing as fast as (Insert VVS plane type here)" And any VVS pilot that knows anything about the 109 will just stay on him in a climb until his pathetic DB engine starts to overheat. That's the game online whether you wish to realize or not. That's gaming the game, and honestly, that sucks.

Now I dont know if the 109's radiators and the drag associated with them is correct. I have seen research stating that it not, and have not seen research contradicting this. So, until an official statement is made, I am afraid that the (My 109 is too slow) posts will continue.

The 1C dev team could put an end to this in one small post, but they have elected (For some unknown reason) not to. Perhaps it goes hand in hand with the drastic changes that were made to the FM's. Something is amiss here, but I am not quite sure what it is. Others are merely speculating out of frustration. Very understandable IMHO.

By the way Clint, I do tend to find your posts a bit smug to say the least. Perhaps it is not you job to ensure people understand your position, but equally, it should be your job to chastise them when they dont. Just a little tip to help you gain friends and influence enemies. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif There are others that I would laso give this advice to as well, but I just dont recall their names. Clint just seems to be the most prolific of the bunch at the moment. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:06 PM
they have been lying us all this time, thats what i feel. tell the odd explanations on different things. lost my hope with this sim.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:19 PM
Clint, did you read the following?

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

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

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

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


Any comments on any of that? Looks pretty cut and dried to me. The beautiful thing about all this is that you don't have to run your own tests or see those of others because the community will keep itself in check. Much like the scientific community. Or do you insist on watching video of every experiment before accepting the consensus of the scientific community on anything?

Only way that I could see needing to observe everything fist hand is if you felt the entire community was united in a conspiracy.

Also, I am curious. You say you don't fly VVS (at least I think you did, too lazy to try and dig it up now), so, what's in it for you? Why are you so obsessed with defending Oleg? He your brother or something?

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:27 PM
Beautifull post Fehler !! Rational, calm, clear and precise.

II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:38 PM
Huckebein_FW wrote:
- Clintruin do you realize that Bf109E and F should
- outturn Yak1, Lagg3'41 and MiG3 even at sea level?
- Is this news to you?

Turn time is about the same, some types a bit worse others a bit better but only by half a second or 1 second.

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/banners/Giobanner.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:55 PM
Good post about the FM - I have been saying this for months now - even years /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I agree the radiator is the 109's achilles heel too.

WRT Turn rates as mentioned above, according to IL-2 Compare the Rates (No Flaps) for the following arcraft at best turn speed are:

E4: 22.5 seconds (closer to 23)
F-2: 20 seconds
F-4: 19.5 Seconds

Yak-1 : 19 Seconds
Yak-1B: 18 Seconds
LaGG-3 : 21 Seconds
MiG-3 : 19 Seconds

Some of those (if comparing to the E-4 are a bit off) are odd if you beleive that the E-4 should out-turn all of those types. IL-2 compare doesn't state though if this is "Sustained" turn or the initial "instantaneous" turn. If so it would make a big difference IMHO.

JG5_UnKle

"Know and use all the capabilities of your airplane. If you don't sooner or later, somebody who does, will kick your ***"


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/victoria.stevens/jg5_logo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:16 PM
The FB 1.0 FM is no way right. The patch was supposed to fix that. Since then we have seen leaked BETA's, one bad release called a patch and only one patch. Not really a 'history of changes'.

You want that you have to go back to the original IL2:Sturmovik. Then you have to look at how much whining just stopped when the stick config files got circulated to see that the FM didn't account as much for change as the change to the settings system itself. The FM changes were more of quality and not quantity but most players can't tell control from flight characteristics.

If you want to have something to point to and b!tch about then go to the history of whines and count them as thruth because there are so many. It's very easy to take up a flag and run blindly.

================================================== ==========

Clint and whoever;

Oleg wants tracks, 1C wants tracks, you want tracks.

UBI at this site should be POSTING tracks showing planes meeting performance. This is THEIR PRODUCTS REPUTATION and they have the means to DEFEND IT. Call it a sales tool. There should be enough tracks from extensive beta tests? Or is it just a case of taking peoples' words and then what are the posts on the forum?

I can't expect to believe a track showing a plane NOT performing anywhere near as much as a plane meeting performance. The ones who attack a claim should not be the ones to prove it. It's too easy to make a plane not do something. The ones defending a claim should be the ones to show it is true as they make or back the claim. They should not turn this around to where the claim is really a denial of the claim itself, that the FM is right within close bounds. If the ones who say a plane can't meet spec post a track then the simple reply is "Learn to Fly!" and "You are not flying it right." so asking for a track like that is a bogus offer with a no-lose guarantee for the defenders.

Go ahead, post your tracks and give us a link, but UBI should have them up for all of us. One new track a week posted at UBI would do more real wonders than all the development of 3D model screenshots I've seen yet. That screenshot biz is just cheerleading if the working product has less fidelity than the graphical models.

Show us the tracks! 1C asks for tracks then show some too! If that is the right way then make the examples.


Neal

ZG77_Nagual
09-21-2003, 09:43 PM
Sheesh - what a bunch of hysteria.
I have to say nearly every time I've tested a claim I've seen posted on here it has proven wrong - others have bothered to record their results and post them here. This hysteria around the words 'game balance' is monumentally bizarre and silly. Some kind of mass neurosis. I've read the infamous 'youss thread' and his assertions really are pretty much the opposite of what most people seem to be making of it. He asserts the fms are very accurate - not that they have been dumbed down for game balance.

He stepped back from that thread because it was starting to make him mad. Others have been sending Oleg personally insulting emails along with all kinds of unqualified remarks about flight models. It's really out of hand.

If you all keep pushing this and abusing the availability of the developers I think you'll see an increasing withdrawal on their part - as a purely practical matter - and less openness to input. The privalege has really been abused well-beyond reason.

Some have taken the time to do systematic tests, and to document them very well - but recently I've seen, and experienced performance that runs contrary to those tests - and favors the 1c position. It is still good that these were done - but when they are contradicted it is appropriate to question your own results as well.

The fms in this game are very complex - with many variables.

I'm really incredulous at some of the things that have been said - really insulting and degrading behavior directed at hard-working honest people.

Anyway - the crux of the issue is the privalege is being badly abused - when people start getting what borders on hate-mail over a flight simm - well, I'd expect to see less of these guys in the future if I were you.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:12 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Clint, did you read the following?

- Any comments on any of that?

My first comment is that none of these threads you have linked to contains a track file of a LW plane being outrun by a 'slower' allied plane.

Where is it? Show me it. Why can't you provide me with it?

Thread number one: wastels weight comparison

If wastel is the same wastel as on the VOW thread, I think Youss has already made a number of comments about the data - see the summary of it in the thread CrazyIvan posted, second page. Wastel has been asked for tracks and original data. No tracks, just figures in a spreadsheet. This does not meet Olegs standard of proof for testing in the game, as far as I am aware, and there's no historical comparison data. Still seems to be fairly open, maybe there will be changes as a result of it, maybe not.

Interestingly the VOW thread seems to indicate that there may even be up to a 45kg weight increase in the 109s when they're next updated. Looking forward to that ? ;>

Thread number two: wastels spreadsheet. Best quote comes from kweassa:

"If there is anything lacking in this overall excellent presentation, I'd say it's the primer on test methods and process - it's no biggy for us who are reviewing the results, but when you address the development team, you'll need it definately. Unlike the P-47 roll issues discussed, (which is pretty much straight-forward to test out), climb testings will need a recorded track for developers to consider."

also from icdp on simhq over here: http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004086;p=1#000 024

" looked at the data from Wastels chart and tried his settings to test the climb rate of the Bf109-G2, according to his tests he was 34 seconds out to 3000m. According to my five seperate tests using his settings I was never more than 8 seconds out, I achieved 3000m in 2.28 seconds fastest and 2.32 seconds slowest, still well within his best and well within acceptable standards IMHO.

Tests under following conditions:
100% throttle
Radiator setting 4
Automatic prop-pitch (keeps ATA at 1.3)
100% fuel
No wind
Kuban map
airspeed 280kph TAS

After take off I would fly over the sea then get as low as possible with speed at 280KPH, I would then start my climb while maintaining 280KPH + or - 2kph. Results did vary but only slightly, in none of the tests was I close to the times in Wastrel's chart to 3000m (2.58), I decided after this much of a discrepancy that any furhter testing with Wastrels charts was not necessary.

I would hardly claim that the 109 was way off the published stats. "

Comparing his own tests to Buzzsaws [more on that later], wastel says on the 21st of the 9th:

"ups, yes sorry,

this was just an typing error..sorry.

speed in climb=280km/h IAS
(rad 4 to 6 in climb)
(rad 2 in speed test)
speeds for speedtest is TAS

sorry for all, was my fault. simply writing "bug"

will upload corrected version

wastel

PS: thx fot showing it out"

Now, there's no further post from Wastel after that point - I have no idea if the version of the climbrate tests I just downloaded is the new updated version.

Addtionally, bazzaah2 seems to be in disagreement with the testing methodology. Here's bazzaah2's take:

"My point is really this. Even on basis of inaccurate test, I have achieved numbers close to those in RLM tests. I will rerun with wind off and speedbar on an take measurements from that. The settings are inaccurate relative to real life BUT the speed at least seems to be in the sim, in the wrong place if you like, but there. This makes me think that Oleg may well just say 'you is wrong' becasue the data are there that support something like RLM figures for speed and can be obtained in FB."

And .. so on and so forth.

Third thread:

BuzzsawXO's climb comparisons.

Did you actually read any of this? Are you trying to now tell me that the LW planes are in fact overmodelled?

Surmising the thread, my take is that it seems like auto-pitch settings for _some_ Bf109s produce the 'correct' climb rates, while others require manual tuning. Some seem to be 'better' than even the fastest real life 109 test available [fin data].

Do you disagree with that assessment of the thread?

Did you also notice that BuzzsawXO is the only one prominently offering tracks of his tests?

Oh, if only Wastel and others had recorded their findings rather than just jotting them down .. do you start to see why I think maybe it's important to get things 'on video', as you put it ?

Forth thread:

Huck's climb comparisons. No mention of how it interrelates to Buzzsaw's tests, but I'm guessing it does, and pretty strongly. The auto-pitch settings don't produce best historical climb for some 109s. Ah! Obviously this must be the clinching data for you, right, DDT? Unfortunately this forth and final thread you linked also contains no high speed data, only climb figures. Which are currently being debated on at least two web boards with 3 peoples tests inter-operating, people updating their findings by plugging in figures into spreadsheets and arguing on forums rather than swapping actual records of what the game does via tracks.

Now then. That actually took me a while to track down and surmise and read through. If I got anyones take on things or quoted the wrong people, please do pipe up, but the obvious thing is that you have not provided the data you were asked for over and over again.

There are no tracks showing allied planes outrunning 109s when they 'shouldn't' according to historical tests.

There's actually very little clear historical data present in any of the threads at all. Even Butch2k has weighed [pun] in on things, whose data is, frankly, about the only persons I'd honestly believe. And I think the same goes for Oleg as well, given their history of data swapping. We'll see what comes out of that, but if Butch2k is involved then I'm sure his input is going to be on the level.

Did you notice that none of these threads - other than Buzzsaw's thread, which shows the exact opposite of what you seem to think it does - has any mention of a track file as part of the users testing methodology? Why do you think that might be? Did you notice how there's absolutely bugger all in the way of actual historical documents provided by people claiming that there's something wrong with the 109s?


- Looks pretty cut and
- dried to me. The beautiful thing about all this is
- that you don't have to run your own tests or see
- those of others because the community will keep
- itself in check.

Um, from what I've seen, DDT, it does exactly the opposite. Chinese whispers start and amplify themselves based on peoples own paranoia. Because noone records anything they do, or it seems they don't, there's no way to actually verify any of it. It's irritating as all hell. And the more information people like Oleg or Youss put in, the worse the distortions and rumours of it seem to get. I don't blame them for keeping their mouths shut after seeing what interpretations people come up with out of their statements.

PS, did you notice Youss's comment about the FW190s having the old Il2 damage model? Apparently it's the only one left in the game.

Not the Lagg.

Not the Yak.

Not the Pe-2/3.

Not the La's.

But the FW190.

Anyone in the community spot that?

- Much like the scientific community.
- Or do you insist on watching video of every
- experiment before accepting the consensus of the
- scientific community on anything?

Scientists keep standardised records, Oleg does too - track files and real, actual, historical documents.

You don't.

Who do I believe?

Who do you think?

- Only way that I could see needing to observe
- everything fist hand is if you felt the entire
- community was united in a conspiracy.

Interesting finding RedHarvests posts over at SimHQ too - apparently there is indeed a conspiracy afoot! Unfortunately it's a conspiracy perpetrated by every simulation developer, ever, to castrate and lop off the mighty Luftwaffe's testicles by humbling their planes flightmodels.

- Also, I am curious. You say you don't fly VVS (at
- least I think you did, too lazy to try and dig it up
- now), so, what's in it for you? Why are you so
- obsessed with defending Oleg? He your brother or
- something?

I fly all sides.

The last couple of weeks - when I'm not playing around trying to work out things to do with TMapper/JoyToKey/NewView and stuff - I've been making up little finland gulf and malta style missions. I usually end up trying to adjust them so that I can play them from any position - much more fun to actually play it and see what the mission does than record it as a track.

I'm pretty much the only person here I'd count as unbiased in terms of my choice of aircraft to fly, I don't fly online anymore and I'd expect the ratio of LW to VVS/Allied flying I do is pretty close to, if not exactly 50/50.

Oleg's not my brother, I don't even consider him a very sympathetic cast member in all this. He's an arrogant guy, perhaps not totally without reason to be, and his attitude to the community is at times quite hostile and uninformative.

In the last few days I think I've found out why that might be. The people who whine the most at him are f*cking idiots.

Thanks for making me break my vow not to type swear words here if I couldn't type out all the letters.


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

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

ZG77_Nagual
09-21-2003, 11:53 PM
clint-ruin,

Admiration for your patience and thoroughness in typing that beast out - and for your rigorous logic - well said.S!

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:02 AM
Holy $hit.

What arrogant, self-righteous, high and mighty bull$hit.

Are you for real Clint? Have you been forced onto the couch for too long or something?

Butch2K has all but agreed with Wastel. He certainly didn't disagree. Even the other LW haters like Milo and Chimp didn't come on and try to slam him.

Youss, as pointed out by Kweassa and others (FAR more credible than you, I might add), behaved in a typically Oleg fashion. Dodging and using smoke screens when pressed.

Buzzsaw "gamed the game" to produce results that were "similar" to established data. The tests were not performed properly. His tests, and tracks, are utterly invalid. Ugly Kid (again, FAR more credible than you. Far less hostile and self-righteous too) was the first to point out, not only that, but also his convenience of choice.

Wastel did provide original data. You just conveniently missed it. Of course. Given the tone of your last post, I'd not expect anything else.

Huck provided the counterpoint to Buzzsaws inaccurate and invalid tests.

All told, plus the IL2 Compare thread, do show that there is quite definitely something wrong with the 109s, and it's to their detriment. IL2 Compare itself shows this as well.

The best part has to be you saying that you are the only unbiased one here. Naturally. The self-righteous would think nothing else. Get over yourself dude, and open your eyes a bit.

Let's pick it apart, shall we?

You are an ardent defender of this game, and a staunch opponent of anyone who criticizes it. You in fact act like Oleg, as if you were in some position of assumed truth and place the burden on everyone else. Refusing to beleive anything that doesn't happen to coincide with your view (interesting that).

Yet, you claim that you aren't a VVS fan boy. And even claim apathy towards Oleg.

Doesn't work. You consider this product "your precious", or you hate the LW and all things German and WWII (as most people thanks to the effective programming they've all been subjected to), or you view Oleg as a hero/idol/messiah. In short, you are lying about something. You can not be apathetic towards Oleg, not be a VVS or FB fanboy, and not be hostile to the LW all at the same time and still take your stance. To say nothing of how you present it, and yourself.

So, either come clean, or give up this crusade and find something better to do with your time, as by any standard, if you have no personal stake in it, this is a total waste of it.

ZG77_Nagual
09-22-2003, 12:12 AM
DDT - your over the top with this messiah stuff. Interesting to see the lavish use of all these emotional amplifiers - this site has become a real petre dish of dysfunctional psychology. Also the making of this into some kind of personal thing and projecting all sorts of messy stuff all over Oleg. Buzzsaw's results are presented pretty dispationately - most a reacting to his opening statement about Oleg being 100% right - without really reading through. Clint is right - you got track files? send em to Oleg - otherwise what are you doing? Making noises and impressing who with all your righteous indignation? Found this over yonder:

"These are the good pists from the VOW forum that I could find


In addon "overheat" will be rewrited for all craft.
************************************************** *********
Climb to 5,000m: 4.5 min. for LA7
Guys reporting 3:45

Youss responds
plz send trak to youss@tut.by - if real 3:45 by timer in track - will repair.
************************************************** *********
In Addon FW190 - gets new Complex DM.
FW is last craft in game which use old-damagemodel from IL2 Sturmovik. This DM use damage-regions on craft. If you not hit damage-region - you not damage craft. You can hit FW 100-200-300 times and nothing. But if you hit DMR - you destroy FW from 5-10 hits. All other craft use new-damage model - fair calculation of each hit.
************************************************** *********
I hear addon planed to release in 10.2003... May be in Cristmas we will see it.
************************************************** *********
Wastel - i talked today with MG. They agree to rework BF109 if you show real proofs for you opinion.
need:
- historical original docs.
- scanned images of test-result.
- scanned images of specs for BF.
Plz prepare you proofs and send to mado@1c.ru

Youss says----Last 2 weeks i'm fly BF.

Will be reworked.

Increase Toughness controls and engine. Decrease mass. Increase speed. Changes not big - near 3-5%.

After 2 weeks of testing was reported in MG 3 bugs

1. DM - engine damage from 7.62
2. DM - controls damage from 7.62
3. FM - slow acceleration in diapasone 200-350 km/h

All 3 bugreport accapted by MG.

About craft mass.

Empty = xxxx - this is not EMPTY mass.
This is "DRY" mass - mass with standart weapons, radio, ...
Mass without - pilot, ammo, fuel, oil... etc

All FM-calculations used this. "TakeOff"-variable NOT used in FM-calculation, used only in muzeum.

Is 2300 kg to much for G2? No - must be 2520 "dry".
Is 2676 kg to much for G6early? No - accurate value.
Is 2676 kg to much for G6late? No - accurate value.
Is 2690 kg to much for G6AS? No - accurate value.
Is 2690 kg to much for G10? No - accurate value.
Is 2665 kg to much for G14? No - accurate value.

This is DRY-mass.

In current test version increase 2 times "Toughness" of engine and controls.
In current test version decreased mass at 150 kg. This give small better speed and climb. Climb increase to 1-2 m/s.

Is this big changes? NO! Less then 5%.

Now have last two problems - acceleration and E-save. Programmers works at this"

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg


Message Edited on 09/21/0307:18PM by ZG77_Nagual

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:27 AM
Nagaul - I've broken it down above. You didn't read it, or dismissed it. Sure it has a bad connotation to it. It's supposed to. But, there are only so many options when ti comes to reasons behind actions and behavior. Over stated and harsh or not, I'm on the right track with my choice of terms.

Furthermore, Oleg is not interested in track files. Wastel did provide that and more to him and was basically told to shove off. Unless he is lying.

If track files meant a damn, the problems would nto exist. Since they don't, we must instead talk to others and build support and hope that it will eventually become overwhelming and changes will be made. See the 190 view thread for details.

Once again, I ask you, and all others like you, what's it to you? If, as you claim, you are not idolizing the man or his product, why are you so indignant? Why are you spending so much time demonizing those who criticize it and acting as a surrogate for Oleg? If you do not care if plains are corrected and brought more in-line with accuracy (as opposed to protecting an unrealistic advantage any plane you favor might have), *and* if you trust Oleg so implicitly to sift through the data and apply only what is correct, why are you acting the way you are?

See my long post to Necro in the Just Questions thread (near the end of page 2).



EDIT - titling a thread "Oleg is 100% right" is anything but dispassionate.


Message Edited on 09/21/0311:33PM by BlitzPig_DDT

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:39 AM
I think it's possible to not be a Luftwhiner nor an Oleg worshipper. Blitz,you seem to see only in black and white,while in reality there are many shades of gray. I consider myself one of those shades. With all due respect,you seem way too fast to label people....

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:49 AM
Well, y'see Necrobaron, either something is logical or it isn't ;>

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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:54 AM
Ah,silly me./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:17 AM
Actually, while I'm cross-breeding forums, there's a couple of excellent posts in the thread I linked to on SimHQ above.

Best ones are the two currently near the end of the third page, mings, and ba_dart's just below it.

http://oldsite.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=98;t=004086;p=2#000 047

__________________________________________________ _________
Buzzsaw's tests

You've heard Buzz's report but not seen the documentation

Military aircraft testing facilities are bonded and their reports are like Bank of England notes. Most of us believe in them so it works

When the report is confirmed it will have that much more authority, until then it remains a report of one finding on one setup

That's the reason for arguments. Factless assertions. Facts can't be argued with they are something that the average person regards as reliable and so believable. As we can see the instruments for ourselves in any test there can be no room for subjectivity. Subjectivity is the bane of scientific testing and can easily be taken out of the equation by showing the instruments rather than reporting on the state of the instruments which is a process subject to errors in transcription

Ming

--------------------
'I've learned that in the description of nature one has to follow approximations, and that even work with approximations can be interesting and sometimes can be beautiful' : Paul Dirac

Where Forgotten Battles equals simulation equals description of nature
__________________________________________________ _________


As I said to DDT before - at times it seems as though people actually prefer there to be no data. I'm sure it's a fun game to divide everyone into oleg lovers or hardcore lw fans. But I don't think the community breaks down along those lines at all, except for a very small and incredibly vocal minority of people.

I have no idea why it's so offensive to ask for a simple track showing the behaviour people say is occuring. Seriously. Some people are getting absolutely hysterical about it.

Anyhow, go read the SimHQ thread - it's like the last 20 ORR ones without a bunch of crazy people hijacking it.


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:20 AM
Hi

as last I see good news event we have to pay more $$ but that make sense for "balance" to have a good quality product http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



- overheat make sense to fix
- historical original docs ( this good too we will stop crezy for standard reference )
- 7.62 MG bug fix (but 7.92mm from BF109F kill many VVS pilot in 1941)
( if we have to pay more $$ I think: should add "historical original docs for weapon (gun) information too )
- slow acceleration in diapasone 200-350 km/h ( wow )


ZG77_Nagual Thanks for your information S!



Wastel you are the man http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
S!

ZG77_Nagual
09-22-2003, 02:24 AM
I'm just advocating a lower noise level - just the facts - no amplifiers. With scientific types emotional noise just doesnt' cut it.

Also - remember English is a second language for the developers. REacting to terse phrasing is a bad way to go.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/p47janes.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 09:49 AM
Best news I've read on any forum in weeks: There will be some fixes.

Now I sincerely HOPE that all the attention isn't on the 109's and engine heat issues. I'd purely LOVE to see some people make tracks showing the P-39's overmodel issues or to shut it up after the addon when it's too late!


Neal

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 11:11 AM
The thing that I'm trying to focus peoples attention on is that it is essential to provide useful data to Maddox in order for any changes to be made.

Wastel's weight comparisons, when double checked, and backed with Butch2k's scans, are potentially valid data.

Buzzsaw's comparisons of climb performance with various manual pitch settings, recorded in tracks, and contrasted with historical tests, are potentially valid data.

Buzzsaw has, quite possibly, discovered the underlying reason for some models of bf109's "poor" performance compared with tests.

The people who are screeching at him and calling him names, while posting things in threads like "This sucks LOL" or "OLEG FIX THE 109s!1!!" have achieved:

NOTHING.

Nothing at all. They may have in fact actually made the developers less likely to listen to similar complaints, no matter how well researched. Certainly it's hard to pick out valid data from the screaming high pitched girlish whining as a result.

While some might consider writing out a post as long as I did to be a waste of time, it's more an attempt at a noise-prevention measure.

If you're posting about a potential bug or inaccuracy in this forum you'd damn well better have something more to your theory than just what you've written in the "body text" field.

I'm quite happy to jump on people just as hard as I did DDT above until they learn, or I get bored.

DDT, if you want to make an attempt at answering any of the questions mentioned in my post - or even take a shot at some of the ones you didn't answer back on page 1 - feel free, anytime. I understand you're upset that people don't share your particular theory as to the underlying dasterdly soviet/oleg/oleg lover triangle of luftwaffe suppression. Perhaps you might even want to look at rephrasing your thoughts so that they don't sound [I]quite as much like the ramblings of a paranoid lunatic. I'm sure you're actually smarter than the posts you've made would lead people to believe - no sarcasm there, really, whether you believe that or not. It's disingenuous of you to accuse Youss of dodging questions, for one, and then dodge them yourself so often. I'd like to think that people here are noble enough to have some strain of intellectual integrity. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Prove me right.

If people do actually want to provide in-game data to demonstrate what they think is wrong with allied vs axis matchups, go for it. As I've said over and over, I'm totally prepared to believe this is happening, but not solely on the basis of peoples say so. Show me it or shut up.


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:51 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
I'm quite happy to jump on people just as hard as I did DDT above until they learn, or I get bored.

__________

LOL You are such a virtual hero.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 12:55 PM
No such thing, pipgig. It's more just the satisfying thwack of sending a crowbar of rhetoric through soft skulls.

I find it entertaining as hell, anyhow.



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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:26 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- I'm quite happy to jump on people just as hard as I
- did DDT above until they learn, or I get bored.

What an ***. Did you work hard at becoming such, or did it just come naturally to you?


- DDT, if you want to make an attempt at answering any
- of the questions mentioned in my post - or even take
- a shot at some of the ones you didn't answer back on
- page 1 - feel free, anytime.

More of the self-righteous egotistical sarcastic bull$hit.


- I understand you're upset that people don't share your particular theory
- as to the underlying dasterdly soviet/oleg/oleg
- lover triangle of luftwaffe suppression.

You obviously understand absolutely nothing. Your ego is no doubt preventing it. The above comment from you proves it.


- Perhaps you might even want to look at rephrasing your
- thoughts so that they don't sound quite as
- much like the ramblings of a paranoid lunatic.

And perhaps you might want to rephrase yours so they don't sound quite like a pompous arrogant a$$hole. But, you probably take pride in being such.


- I'm sure you're actually smarter than the posts
- you've made would lead people to believe

Too bad the same isn't true for you. You're obviously an idiot. Or a troll. Not too much difference though.


- no sarcasm there, really, whether you believe that or
- not.

Right. And I'm the pope.


- It's disingenuous of you to accuse Youss of
- dodging questions, for one, and then dodge them
- yourself so often.

Ok, perhaps you ought to try reading for comprehension. I never dodged any question. And Youss's actions and my own are not interrelated. That's nothing but a smoke and mirrors tactic on your part.


- I'd like to think that people
- here are noble enough to have some strain of
- intellectual integrity. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
- Prove me right.

Arrogant, pompous, self-righteous, and a troll. What a personality you have going there. Of course, it may finally answer my question to you of "what's it to you" when it comes to these boards. It's all too likely that you have no life outside of these boards and no friends, and so you must come here to pedal your bull$hit and try to make yourself feel like a big man.

So sad.


- If people do actually want to provide in-game data
- to demonstrate what they think is wrong with allied
- vs axis matchups, go for it. As I've said over and
- over, I'm totally prepared to believe this is
- happening, but not solely on the basis of peoples
- say so. Show me it or shut up.

And we should show you or "shut up" why exactly? Who the fuc|< are you? Nobody. Much as you wish to think otherwise, you are absolutely nobody with a total value to this community and to this game, of zero.

I notice you didn't bother to respond to Maxguns's challenge. Another matter of convenience for you? Or are simply nothing but an empty troll?

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:32 PM
dont bother to respond to clint_ruins posts, he´s an a$$Wank, nothing more. he doesnt posses any data or anything else. he just trolls here, triest to lure u away from the real subject.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 04:45 PM
hi,

Tip...

ask ..'Radio Eriwan'....


it's highly amusing to follow all this nice simmers/gamers with the illusion of a real or true answer..

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 09:36 AM
clint-ruin you SB!

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:12 PM
I can't explain this because I never told such things.

Sorry, Dima also didn't tell it Yoss. Never.



RolfWolf wrote:
- nt
-
- http://www.treffnix.onlinehome.de/3.jpg
-
-
-
-
-
- http://www.rolfwolf.de/sig/sig.jpg
-
- Message Edited on 09/19/03 10:52PM by RolfWolf



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 12:19 PM
Probably he means not balance, but tunes that to get close to right final parameters. Yes we use some time different weight than it was that to tune aircraft. Say it was 2300, but we use 2500 digit just to get right ohter main performance digits and curves.



Oleg Maddox
1C:Maddox Games

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:52 PM
Hi Oleg, it's nice to see you here.

Im still having fun with the game!

Judging all the noise here on the forum, others still love it too. Even when you get bad copmments, be sure it's because people really have a passion for this sim!

That is a credit to you and your team.

P.S. Im a Luftwhiner.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 01:56 PM
Wow! Oleg! Please see my Escape! Thread. Thankyou./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

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

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire & Escape Whiner Member).

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 02:36 PM
Hello Oleg..

Nice to see you in this Forum.

Please tell me your point of view about the Bf109G6 now.

Wastel made a good research about the Perfomance of the Bf109 G Series, and he discover and explain some good facts about the Climb performance of this Plane series.
I think you know this documents.

IMO the Bf109G6+ Series climb much worser than it should.
In the Documents Wastel published the G6 for Example shoud Climb not much worser than the G2.

It would be great if you spend a little time for an answer to this questions.

Greetings


http://www.rolfwolf.de/sig/sig.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 08:22 PM
I agree to 100% with you /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Fehler wrote:
- Hi Oleg, it's nice to see you here.
-
- Im still having fun with the game!
-
- Judging all the noise here on the forum, others
- still love it too. Even when you get bad copmments,
- be sure it's because people really have a passion
- for this sim!
-
- That is a credit to you and your team.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:07 PM
Mr. Clint-ruin,

I have been reading your posts for a few days now and I am thoroughly enjoying watching you obliterate the whiners with heavy doses of logic and reason!!! It is quite entertaining watching the emotional outbursts and "chinese whispers" crumble at your feet. This forum has long been in need of a little house cleaning and I think you are the man for the job. You might even transform this place into a respectable forum once again.

The pure and bitter hatred that is shown towards you really shows that you are touching on some serious nerves. The rhetoric and rumors simply can't stand the test of logic. It really shows when people can only respond to you by swearing, attacking you personally and having what would appear to be a full blown child's tantrum. It seems such a simple thing to make a track showing the error doesn't it? I think everyone knows very well why the tracks are not coming forth!

Surely you are more than just a postman??? You must have some engineering blood in you?

Keep up the good work! Plenty of us that would never even attempt to "wallow" in this place are enjoying a good laugh now!

Hi Oleg!

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 11:46 PM
Clint... if you ever gonna stop in Jersey, i`ll buy you a beer...or two /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
09-24-2003, 03:51 AM
DoubleUgly wrote:
- Mr. Clint-ruin,
-
- I have been reading your posts for a few days now
- and I am thoroughly enjoying watching you obliterate
- the whiners with heavy doses of logic and reason!!!

You must be on crack. He's so poorly informed as to be laughable.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:49 AM
"You must be on crack. He's so poorly informed as to be laughable."

Yup. Plus he's Kindergarten level, just as his sig.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 04:54 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Clint... if you ever gonna stop in Jersey, i`ll buy
- you a beer...or two
- Regards,
- VFC*Crazyivan


Agreed!

Good job Clint, very logical posts!

So much venom is spewn your way... it's actually quite amusing, because it's probably the only thing these anti-Russian and/or diehard pro-German types here are good at! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg



Message Edited on 09/24/0312:55AM by Voskhod5

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 07:12 AM
Red_Harvest wrote:

- You must be on crack. He's so poorly informed as to
- be laughable.
-
-

Is that so? Well if he is poorly informed, it would certainly follow that one of the "well informed" persons should be able to shut him down right quick.

As it stands, folks are awfully hard pressed to do anything more than cuss and spit at him. Character assassination, I believe it is called.

I think some folks here hate clint even more than they hate Oleg. There is a feather in your cap clint!

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 08:06 AM
Thanks for the kind words Double_Ugly and CrazyIvan and others.

I actually wish someone would try and shut me up with something other than vitriol and bile, that's kind of the point of making these posts.

It seems such a big deal to set up test conditions properly and record an event in the game. Even to click the button "save track" after throwing the joystick across the room in disgust would be of more use than simple scientologist style dead-agenting.

What's amazing is that Buzzsaw and I and others are apparently some kind of ******ed pond scum for recording tracks showing the behaviour we wish to demonstrate, yet that our work is achievable on our apparently limited intellects says nothing kind about the intelligence of those howling at us both but producing nothing worthwhile of their own.

I can understand how DDT would be upset about a Lipstadt > Irving style demolition post - not that I'd put recording events in a computer game on the level with her years of work, just seemed somehow appropriate. Eventually he might get over it and take a shot at a response to the data rather than a shot at me. But things like RedHarvest telling me that he has no intention of looking at any tracks that don't support his assertions about FB, then going on to make the same previously invalidated claims about the Pe-2 to the developer of the game hints at some form of dementia.

I have said it so many times that I'm getting indents on the relevant keys on my keyboard: I believe there are real problems with LW planes performance. I believe it does nothing useful, for anyone, to make claims about in-game behaviour with no supporting evidence. If you can show the bug you're complaining about it becomes so, so much simpler to do something about it - either for "the community" such as it is to determine for themselves what's happening, or for the developer to gain the evidence they need that there is in fact a bug.

Making posts with no attached evidence does not help. It makes for clashes of personalities, not facts, which when we're talking about a computer game, would be fairly unarguable. It really does seem like people would prefer it to boil down to a matter of belief, which I find amazing - anyone currently doing university level psych should be told about these forums, there's a thesis if not a book in it for them.

There are a number of quite rational people here - some of whom sometimes end up making posts they later regret - but who are nonetheless quite intelligent and come from scientific or engineering backgrounds. If you're one of these people it'd be great if you could come out more strongly against the unsupported bollocks posts early, before they turn into some kind of commonly-held fact for no reason.

If ORR was just people showing Oleg weird things that happen to them in the game or politely asking questions of him about FB, rather than boldly asserting things they have no evidence for at all, it'd make me really, really happy.


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

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

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:11 AM
clint-ruin wrote:
- But things like RedHarvest telling me
- that he has no intention of looking at any tracks
- that don't support his assertions about FB, then
- going on to make the same previously invalidated
- claims about the Pe-2 to the developer of the
- game hints at some form of dementia.

The answer to this behavior is quite apparent I believe. It has always been suspected by most but you have been very effective in exposing it for all to see (which is why they desperately want to get rid of you). In fact, DDT came right out and said it in page 2 of this thread:

"If track files meant a damn, the problems would nto exist. Since they don't, we must instead talk to others and build support and hope that it will eventually become overwhelming and changes will be made. See the 190 view thread for details."

The LW simply are trying to build a critical mass so they can heavy-hand Oleg into giving them whatever they ask for. And as you are quite aware, the "chinese whispers" that never get backed by any hard data just perpetuate the conspiracy theory and that is a big ticket item for bringing more people and emotion to the flock ... and we all know that if you say something enough times then it must be true. Dont be fooled, some of these guys have been doing this literally for years in other sims. They know all of the tricks for building up the group. Yes sir, if they can be the loudest most obnoxious group on the block, then they are almost there!

Of course I am not saying anything here that you did not aleady know. It just becomes so clear when I write it out like this.

I admit that not all of the LW are involved in this plot. Some actually want a true historical sim and they are very easy to identify by their posts.

I also agree that the LW aircraft need some tweaking done. So do some of the VVS aircraft. But, there is no better way to say it than Oleg did:

"PS.
Yes, bugs in tunes are... But not like you are loud here."

Yep, we all know that some of the fm's need tweaking. But, are they "totally porked"??? No way, not even close. But hey, the LW still have a critical mass to build ... so totally porked it is!


- There are a number of quite rational people here -
- some of whom sometimes end up making posts they
- later regret - but who are nonetheless quite
- intelligent and come from scientific or engineering
- backgrounds. If you're one of these people it'd be
- great if you could come out more strongly against
- the unsupported bollocks posts early, before they
- turn into some kind of commonly-held fact for no
- reason.

Thanks for the invite, but, you are MUCH better at this than I am, and all of the screaming and non-sense here really gives me a headache! Besides, I would rather spend my limited free time flying rather than arguing. I'll try to post when I can because I would hate to see the in-sincere part of the LW ruin this sim.

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 09:21 AM
hi,
..that's the point..there are many imponderabilities..in such a FM Gameengine You use in IL2/Fb ..there is no 1:1 real physik possible(some user believe)...only aproximate values by testing all the planes for long time... as You know ...

..re to many analysies of Fly and MS/FS container plane datas...

by the way: I prefer the method of X-Plane FM recalculate..

so:: after a bit more finetuning of a last patch to FB..so many user will happy to the end of 2003...

what about a new future combat flightsim of next generation
64 bit programming + better FM Game Engine programming like X-Plane did in 7.0(but there only 32 bit ) ..?
any news available ?

Oleg_Maddox wrote:
- Probably he means not balance, but tunes that to get
- close to right final parameters. Yes we use some
- time different weight than it was that to tune
- aircraft. Say it was 2300, but we use 2500 digit
- just to get right ohter main performance digits and
- curves.
-
-
-
-
- Oleg Maddox
- 1C:Maddox Games
-

XyZspineZyX
09-24-2003, 10:23 PM
Good post DoubleUlgy, you hit the nail right on the head!


<center>[BlitzPig_Voskhod]<center>
<center>http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gingernuts/blitz_anim.gif <center>

http://airbase.uka.ru/hangar/planes/pix/su27vsf15.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 03:21 AM
DoubleUgly wrote:
-
- Red_Harvest wrote:
-
-- You must be on crack. He's so poorly informed as to
-- be laughable.
--
--
-
- Is that so? Well if he is poorly informed, it would
- certainly follow that one of the "well informed"
- persons should be able to shut him down right quick.
-
- As it stands, folks are awfully hard pressed to do
- anything more than cuss and spit at him. Character
- assassination, I believe it is called.

Clint writes these huge tomes claiming everything stated by everyone else is wrong. I don't even bother reading more than a few lines. When someone tries to tell folks that every point they make is wrong, a lie, etc. you can smell the BS from a continent away. I've never seen such a puffed up windbag as Clint, even here in ORR. I'm not into track trading and I don't take orders from nitwits. I draw the line at that. I have no need to rebut what Clint says, and I would rather shove a stick in his eye than do anything he "insists." The absurdity of that still amazes me. He will probably explode one of these days when his ego reaches critical mass.

If you find his actions laudible, it says a lot about your character as well.

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:10 AM
Vosk, I know you like to see Oleg defended and all, and I do think there is something more to that than just liking the game, but, the simple fact of the matter is that Clint is a pompous self-righteous *** that doesn't read or understand what is going on in this forum outside of the few threads he tries to boost his ego in.

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:06 AM
I think Clint is doing a good job - he is simply asking for documentation of claims. For that he receives a bucket load of crap, still he persists. WTG Clint !

C!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:41 AM
cant people discuss politely?
Am not even going to say who I think is right or wrong.
But surely a discussion can be done in a civilised manner with no insults.

If you were having this discussion face to face in a bar you would all probably chill out and have a beer instead.

My two cents

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 11:54 AM
red harvest:

>Clint writes these huge tomes claiming everything stated by everyone else is wrong. I don't even bother reading more than a few lines. When someone tries to tell folks that every point they make is wrong, a lie, etc. you can smell the BS from a continent away.

He is asking for people to prove what they are saying, and refusing to accept their claims until he sees the evidence. When somebody says: I don't even bother to read it properly and then continues to judge the very thing they do not bother to read you can smell the BS from a continent away

C!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 05:09 PM
DDT, your posting is insulting, vulgar, emotionally riddled and extremely judgemental; Clint's posts OTOH are clear and civil, while at the same time restrained.

Why do you find it so necessary to post in the manner you have chosen, Clint's posts seem totally reasonable to myself, while yours are pretty damning.

BTW I agree with alot of what you say with one MAJOR exception, however, if you were really referring to yourself in your insults and judgements of others, well then I TOTALLY agree with you.

Now if you find that insulting, then maybe you'll consider the content of your posts more carefully.

Regards

Rook

XyZspineZyX
09-25-2003, 09:53 PM
Voskhod5 wrote:
- Good post DoubleUlgy, you hit the nail right on the head!

Thanks Voskhod5.


Red_Harvest wrote:

- Clint writes these huge tomes claiming everything
- stated by everyone else is wrong. I don't even
- bother reading more than a few lines. When someone
- tries to tell folks that every point they make is
- wrong, a lie, etc. you can smell the BS from a
- continent away. I've never seen such a puffed up
- windbag as Clint, even here in ORR. I'm not into
- track trading and I don't take orders from nitwits.
- I draw the line at that. I have no need to rebut
- what Clint says, and I would rather shove a stick in
- his eye than do anything he "insists." The
- absurdity of that still amazes me. He will probably
- explode one of these days when his ego reaches
- critical mass.
-
- If you find his actions laudible, it says a lot
- about your character as well.


More venom and hate Red?

Below is a quote from Red over at Simhq:

"I've tried to point out some obvious problems so that perhaps the final patch will get them fixed. But all I hear is the screams of Kami and Pdog and Ruger and Ming and Clint-Ruin and Dart and Thera saying how great it is and nothing is wrong."

Now a qouote from Clint just a few posts up:

" have said it so many times that I'm getting indents on the relevant keys on my keyboard: I believe there are real problems with LW planes performance. I believe it does nothing useful, for anyone, to make claims about in-game behaviour with no supporting evidence."

I wont even discuss the part about Ming, Dart and Clint supposedly screaming.

It took me all of 45 seconds to come up with these quotes.

You LIE Red. I don't know if you do it intentionally or out of ignorance, but you do lie. And so do a lot of other people here that are in your camp.

Are you really surprised that Clint, Oleg (or anyone) requests that you and your minions back up what you say? You've proven that you simply cannot be trusted at your word.

It should now be apparent that your judgement of my character is pretty much meaningless.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:39 AM
DoubleUgly wrote:
-
- You LIE Red. I don't know if you do it
- intentionally or out of ignorance, but you do lie.
- And so do a lot of other people here that are in
- your camp.


Hey, Doublestupid. He started posting that DAYS after coming in running his mouth telling us "you is all wrong" in his multi-page rambling way. Wouldn't have seen it except for your post. I haven't been reading his tomes for days (at least not more than a sentence or two.) No lies coming from this side. You however have a serious credibility problem with your above statements.

Clint starts changing his tune all of sudden. No specifics in your posts or his about what is wrong...I posted specifics. I've checked my own stuff out carefully before I posted. He should have done the same (as you should have too.) But no, he, you and a bunch of other clowns here and on SimHQ just want to start flame wars. I've been specific and my stuff is all repeatable, plus I have documentation to back the claims. You can take the rest and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. Like I've said, I don't take orders from nitwits.

You can remain in denial all you want. This patch has problems and I've pointed to specifics. I won't bother doing that anymore, because I'm tired of listening to garbage spewing from the "I-don't-have-any-literature-and haven't-tested-it-properly-but-I-flew-a-dogfight-in-plane-X-once-and-everything-is-alright." And I don't even have a "side." I fly both sides and test both sides.

I used to post problems when I found them, for either side. But with all the BS in these forums from monkeys like you, I'm not gonna waste my time with it.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:57 AM
You do get very emotional at odd times - I don't know what 'tomes' of clints you are referring too, but I often see spiteful posts from you.

Clint has the ** irony ** AUDACITY ** irony off ** to ask for evidence when claims are being made - what is so wrong with that ?

At any rate - b4 you get all mad at me. I would really like to see your documentation. Where can I obtain it ?

C!

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

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 05:39 AM
Red_Harvest wrote:

- No lies coming from this side.
- You however have a serious credibility problem with
- your above statements.

LOL! Whoa! How did you flip that around on to me? I have a credibility problem now? Care to explain that? Just kidding ... you don't explain or poove your accusations do you? You just say it and it is so.
-
- Clint starts changing his tune all of sudden. No
- specifics in your posts or his about what is
- wrong...I posted specifics. I've checked my own
- stuff out carefully before I posted. He should have
- done the same (as you should have too.) But no, he,
- you and a bunch of other clowns here and on SimHQ
- just want to start flame wars.

Red, do you have manure for brains? If you will scan up a few posts you will see CLEARLY that YOU addressed me first, in a negative tone, thus starting this flame war with me. I hate flame wars and that is why I rarely visit these forums. I said as much just above, but you seem to have a hard time keeping up. Or are you twisting things to suit yourself ... yet again???

- I've been specific
- and my stuff is all repeatable, plus I have
- documentation to back the claims.

O.K.

- You can remain in denial all you want. This patch
- has problems and I've pointed to specifics. I won't
- bother doing that anymore, because I'm tired of
- listening to garbage spewing from the
- "I-don't-have-any-literature-and
- haven't-tested-it-properly-but-I-flew-a-dogfight-i
- n-plane-X-once-and-everything-is-alright." And I
- don't even have a "side." I fly both sides and test
- both sides.
-
- I used to post problems when I found them, for
- either side. But with all the BS in these forums
- from monkeys like you, I'm not gonna waste my time
- with it.
-

All in all I'd say this was a fine post for you Red. I can't see where you carried a single thought all the way through (almost unintelligible). I don't see a curse word anywhere. You seemed barely able to keep up with events and you demonstrated a remarkable ability to participate in a forum while NOT reading anyone else's posts.

And as a result, I now have a credibility problem.

You are amazing!