PDA

View Full Version : Well hasn't this forum become boring?



Dunkelgrun
04-02-2006, 09:41 AM
'Nuff said really. It used to be possible to learn something on here, or to be entertained/outraged by the threads. Sadly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , no more.

Oh well...

Cheers!

LStarosta
04-02-2006, 09:44 AM
For shizzle.

msalama
04-02-2006, 09:48 AM
Hey, being outraged by some of the more cretinous threads will always be possible around here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

heywooood
04-02-2006, 09:49 AM
...waiting impatiently for E3....zzzzzzzz

PBNA-Boosher
04-02-2006, 09:53 AM
The Combat Story thread is back up, if you're interested in some reading or writing.

Megile_
04-02-2006, 11:01 AM
No spam, no fishing, no obscene nubness..

I like it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Breeze147
04-02-2006, 11:22 AM
Yeah!!! Well, your ugly and your feet stink!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

TX-Zen
04-02-2006, 12:59 PM
It's difficult to learn anything here really because of a few specific individuals who have decided that they (and apparently only they) are the final judge on what is a permissible FM debate vs what is merely a whine. Over the years they seem to have pretty much wrecked the forum for any kind of honest debate and now I feel most people with something to say won't bother because at some point they will be challenged and argued down by silly rhetoric and the endless demand for tracks and charts. From what I gather, no one can make a test method that is acceptable to this group, there is always some reason why the tester's methods are flawed and therefore the results are discounted. Anyone attempting to use history is likewise attacked to the point of nauseum. I've seen virtually every chart and test discounted at one time or another, every test has similarly been rhetorically shutdown as well.

Some of them appear to believe that 1C is always right and no one has the authority to challenge the FM (despite the obvious fluctuations patch to patch), some of them argue just for the sake of arguing and some like to make everything a personal challenge. 1C's credentials and unpublished data are used to discredit anyone making an assertion because how could we, simple forum members, actually have a better understanding of history than the game designer? Add them all up and it can become quite a chore to question even simple points about the FM in the sim, let alone whether there may actually be a serious flaw. Since none of us flew any of these planes in the war, we also cannot possibly be qualified to debate what it was like and simply reading a history book, or two, or ten is insufficient, because we don't know

What I find mildly amusing is that if you watch them long enough you will see they actually have no position on what is correct and what is not, they really only argue to come out on top, to be the loudest and appear to be the most authoritive. All I can gather is that for them, nothing is true. Historians cannot be trusted, pilot accounts cannot be trusted, charts cannot be trusted, war tests cannot be trusted and our own reasonable opinions cannot be trusted.

The forums used to be very educational, but many of the people who actually knew alot have migrated to other forums where the invective is not so harsh. True, back then there was plenty of baseless whining, but there was also a gold mine of great history being debated. Now it's been reduced to a very lame set of cheap debate tactics and a firm belief that no one is right because nothing can be proved conclusively, so whatever 1C gives us must be correct because they know.

The funny thing about history is that it really is subjective, you have to take any given comment with a grain of salt because we really don't know for sure. And you must be careful about context, because perspective is very important to the historical claims made. I certainly don't read one pilot account and think to myself, hey, the FW190 was the second fastest diving plane of the war because a German ace said so. But I do give it more credence when Johnson says the same thing, other Allied and German pilots agree and perhaps I read an account of a side by comparison flight. I wouldn't say it's conclusively proven, but I would easily say it's probable and generally feel comfortable it's an assumption I can work with because it gives me a framework to evaluate things. From there I could feel confident to come to the forum and debate my opinion based on that framework, during which perhaps I might learn something. And thats my point about history...you need to look at the whole to get an idea of what is most likely, then evaluate specifics within that context, because without context all the pilot accounts, charts etc etc really are meaningless. Each of us must decide what that context is ofcourse and that is exactly what makes historical debate so interesting, like the forums were long ago.

Unfortunately it seems that for some in these forums, probably means probably not, because it's not proven 100%. And when probably means probably not, there is no common framework to judge things and that inevitably means anything (and often everything) can be and almost certainly is discounted. Without a common framework to start with, there really is no point in debate because it always comes down to 'can you prove it' and WW2 aircraft performance is rarely able to be simplified to a yes or no value.

Whats interesting to me is that there are many things in the sim which don't jive with history...but any attempt to quantify why is met with the tired demand for absolute proof, as though they know and the poster doesn't. God forbid if you come in here without all your facts straight, but amusingly enough, as far as I can tell having your facts in order doesn't matter either because those facts are inevitably subjective and therefore easily discounted.

But the fact is that in WW2, there were numerous people who fought in the conflict and made their comments, planes were designed and engineered, performance documented and combat showed the relative merits of each. Many historians have gone back to research the mass of data and publish their conclusions and opinions, while we as a community like to read these opinions and consider for ourselves whether it's likely any given subject really was this or that way. But when we come now to the forum, probably is simply not acceptable, historical accounts are discarded, specific performance charts are not to be trusted, entire captured aircraft tests thrown out, historians disgregarded...and so the common framework of debate has been eliminated by years of steady rhetoric and demands for proof in a subject which is imho largely unprovable, at least the degree that is often demanded. Effectively, by continously discounting each specific example, ALL of it is discounted, which seems rather pointless to me.



Not surprising that things have dumbed down the way they have.

Divine-Wind
04-02-2006, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by Breeze147:
Yeah!!! Well, your ugly and your feet stink!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
Oh noes! What will he do?!

Gah...


Must... Wash... Hands...


(Sorry, I just watched The Aviator again last night... Was pretty much a waste, and with daylight savings time in effect...

There goes 4 hours of sleep...)

slo_1_2_3
04-02-2006, 01:09 PM
wasnt my story of install amusing?

Bremspropeller
04-02-2006, 02:02 PM
Very good post, Zen ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

arcadeace
04-02-2006, 02:11 PM
Its always interesting responding to the few condescending snobs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The enlightened, mature, uber etc. somehow claiming you have no right to type within the loosely defined terms of use... because they don't approve.

Von_Rat
04-02-2006, 02:28 PM
agreed with zen.

ive actually met people like that in person.

having any debate, on any subject, is futile. because nothing can ever be proven to their satisfaction.

this stand of theirs is usually used to justify doing nothing, to hold no firm opinion on anything. which is what your seeing more and more here.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-02-2006, 02:46 PM
Zen makes some good points.

But it's not the fault of the various debating styles: it's the fault of the Moderators. Censorship does tend to put a damper on interest on a bulletin board, in favor of "shiny, happy, predictable behavior".

At the risk of being sent on vacation again (and what the he*ll, if this board is to be censored, rather than moderated, I can't post what I really want to anyway...):

It's my experience that the moderators are guilty of the single worst mistake a mod can make on a board: interjecting their own opinion to make decisions on what to edit and who to "ban".

Case in point: my last "enforced vacation" came as a result of what the mods said was "hijacking" a thread on the graphics of oil leaks on a particular Japanese plane that the author claimed would be incapable of throwing oil upwards on the windscreen. This led to my discussion of how the design team's emphasis on "kewl eye candy" at the expense of accuracy led to this, and also the indifference to "getting it right" boded ill for that particular problem to be fixed. Certain of the "personalities" who are wont to "protect Oleg from any criticism" jumped in and one thing led to another.

However, what I posted was dead on topic. When I was informed of my suspension, the reason given was hijacking. Actually, it was just the mods not wanting to allow (constant) criticism of the design ethos of the sim, or being tired of hearing it. There was nothing obscene, profane, threatening, etc. about my post. And, it was NOT hijacking at all. But the moderator was "tired of my line of logic", so he "found" a reason apply a ban, and used it.

VERY bad form, and a very slippery slope for a moderator.

In almost every case, the community can decide when we're tired of a discussion, and that happens when we simply stop posting in it. Provided there are no threats, profanity, etc., there is no need to ever close or lock a thread. The fact that the threads appear, or go on long, or get testy among the debating parties, is only indicative of the level of interest, or passion that the community has for the topic. When a mod shuts down a thread just because "Oleg has spoken" and because the mod himself is "tired of hearing this", it is basically the moderator casting a veto based on his personal stance on the controversy in question. In a word, censorship. Taking a clue from the very title, a MODERATOR's job is to MODERATE: to keep things even and balanced not to decide the issue one way or another.

I'd say WE, THE COMMUNITY can decide when enough is enough, thank you. Even if "Oleg has spoken", it doesn't mean he can't change his mind, and it also doesn't mean that the points being made aren't totally spot on.

IMO, the only reasons to ban a person or close a thread is for over-the-top profanity, threats, libels, things of that order. Possibly completely off-topic posts, but even that is not rigidly applied; I see posts all the time on sports, politics, famous persons, none of which have anything to do with aerial warfare, WWII (or any war), aircraft, pilots, or anything. So, either ban ALL of those, or don't selectively edit based on personal whim.

And, here's the kicker: nobody has ever been censured for a totally congratulatory post that adds nothing, but simply fawns over the sim for being "the best ever!!" However, some posts that castigate the sim for a variety of reasons, some of them well backed by history, or reasoning ARE padlocked. Hmmm...do I sense some bias here?

BaronUnderpants
04-02-2006, 02:54 PM
Dont forget...u need a minimum of a 1000+ post count to even be considered taken seriously.

P.S. Good post Zen....have caught my selfe basing my opinions on personal preferance rather than fact/plausible facts on several occasions....working hard to stop that from hapening again.

fordfan25
04-02-2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
It's difficult to learn anything here really because of a few specific individuals who have decided that they (and apparently only they) are the final judge on what is a permissible FM debate vs what is merely a whine. Over the years they seem to have pretty much wrecked the forum for any kind of honest debate and now I feel most people with something to say won't bother because at some point they will be challenged and argued down by silly rhetoric and the endless demand for tracks and charts. From what I gather, no one can make a test method that is acceptable to this group, there is always some reason why the tester's methods are flawed and therefore the results are discounted. Anyone attempting to use history is likewise attacked to the point of nauseum. I've seen virtually every chart and test discounted at one time or another, every test has similarly been rhetorically shutdown as well.

Some of them appear to believe that 1C is always right and no one has the authority to challenge the FM (despite the obvious fluctuations patch to patch), some of them argue just for the sake of arguing and some like to make everything a personal challenge. 1C's credentials and unpublished data are used to discredit anyone making an assertion because how could we, simple forum members, actually have a better understanding of history than the game designer? Add them all up and it can become quite a chore to question even simple points about the FM in the sim, let alone whether there may actually be a serious flaw. Since none of us flew any of these planes in the war, we also cannot possibly be qualified to debate what it was like and simply reading a history book, or two, or ten is insufficient, because we don't know

What I find mildly amusing is that if you watch them long enough you will see they actually have no position on what is correct and what is not, they really only argue to come out on top, to be the loudest and appear to be the most authoritive. All I can gather is that for them, nothing is true. Historians cannot be trusted, pilot accounts cannot be trusted, charts cannot be trusted, war tests cannot be trusted and our own reasonable opinions cannot be trusted.

The forums used to be very educational, but many of the people who actually knew alot have migrated to other forums where the invective is not so harsh. True, back then there was plenty of baseless whining, but there was also a gold mine of great history being debated. Now it's been reduced to a very lame set of cheap debate tactics and a firm belief that no one is right because nothing can be proved conclusively, so whatever 1C gives us must be correct because they know.

The funny thing about history is that it really is subjective, you have to take any given comment with a grain of salt because we really don't know for sure. And you must be careful about context, because perspective is very important to the historical claims made. I certainly don't read one pilot account and think to myself, hey, the FW190 was the second fastest diving plane of the war because a German ace said so. But I do give it more credence when Johnson says the same thing, other Allied and German pilots agree and perhaps I read an account of a side by comparison flight. I wouldn't say it's conclusively proven, but I would easily say it's probable and generally feel comfortable it's an assumption I can work with because it gives me a framework to evaluate things. From there I could feel confident to come to the forum and debate my opinion based on that framework, during which perhaps I might learn something. And thats my point about history...you need to look at the whole to get an idea of what is most likely, then evaluate specifics within that context, because without context all the pilot accounts, charts etc etc really are meaningless. Each of us must decide what that context is ofcourse and that is exactly what makes historical debate so interesting, like the forums were long ago.

Unfortunately it seems that for some in these forums, probably means probably not, because it's not proven 100%. And when probably means probably not, there is no common framework to judge things and that inevitably means anything (and often everything) can be and almost certainly is discounted. Without a common framework to start with, there really is no point in debate because it always comes down to 'can you prove it' and WW2 aircraft performance is rarely able to be simplified to a yes or no value.

Whats interesting to me is that there are many things in the sim which don't jive with history...but any attempt to quantify why is met with the tired demand for absolute proof, as though they know and the poster doesn't. God forbid if you come in here without all your facts straight, but amusingly enough, as far as I can tell having your facts in order doesn't matter either because those facts are inevitably subjective and therefore easily discounted.

But the fact is that in WW2, there were numerous people who fought in the conflict and made their comments, planes were designed and engineered, performance documented and combat showed the relative merits of each. Many historians have gone back to research the mass of data and publish their conclusions and opinions, while we as a community like to read these opinions and consider for ourselves whether it's likely any given subject really was this or that way. But when we come now to the forum, probably is simply not acceptable, historical accounts are discarded, specific performance charts are not to be trusted, entire captured aircraft tests thrown out, historians disgregarded...and so the common framework of debate has been eliminated by years of steady rhetoric and demands for proof in a subject which is imho largely unprovable, at least the degree that is often demanded. Effectively, by continously discounting each specific example, ALL of it is discounted, which seems rather pointless to me.



Not surprising that things have dumbed down the way they have. well said. +1,i agree 100%,be sure and all that. there are a number of people i have kept my eyes on over the months and past few years who like you say. thay seem to contradect them selves from one argument to the other oth and like to yell WHINING when the topic is not what thay want to hear. but o well. its still a kool place to hang .

o and Dunkelgrun. for cryn out load wash your feet. i can smell them threw my speakers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

slo_1_2_3
04-02-2006, 03:36 PM
Am I one of those people? DO you guys dislike me or like me? Just curious I want to see where I stand.

fordfan25
04-02-2006, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Am I one of those people? DO you guys dislike me or like me? Just curious I want to see where I stand. ok first . your going to have to ask your self "how do i feel about full frountle male nudity" ......................*movie "waiting"*

russ.nl
04-02-2006, 04:47 PM
Excelent post Zen http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif and Stigler has a good point too.
I saw this thread standing this afternoon so I thought lets have a nice discussion about 9/11 and opent a thread aoubt it with a conspiracy video link.
It's already locked and nothing even happend yet. I know it's off topic but still. (In a way it isn't off topic)

luftluuver
04-02-2006, 04:57 PM
I have noticed the head of the German propaganda corp, who is not even German, is not around to much lately. It was always 'exciting' when his shovel was being used. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif


Certain of the "personalities" who are wont to "protect Oleg from any criticism" jumped in and one thing led to another.
Why use the plural Stigler when it is only 1?

Enthor1
04-02-2006, 05:15 PM
Get off the cross Stigler, both 2 week vacations were well deserved.

slo_1_2_3, your install epic was indeed amusing, I cannot wait till the next patch for part 2.

Glad you got it going.

blairgowrie
04-02-2006, 05:35 PM
I have to agree with both Zen and Stigler but I think the real credit for this thread goes to
Dunkelgrun. As you said m8 'Nuff said really'

I seldom read the General Discussion threads anymore. Too many treating it as their personal chat room. IMHO, I would like to see the mods exercise a tougher stance. Some of the comments don't even make sense. It's like they just want to increase their post count.

I have already said too much. Nuff said really

diomedes33
04-02-2006, 06:00 PM
Well said Zen
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

BfHeFwMe
04-02-2006, 06:26 PM
If only they could remove the *amn quote feature. Thirty pages of nothing but &*&^%$(*$#$#%% quotes full of rubbish.

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

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 07:13 PM
Yeah gee, that "only a game developer" Oleg Maddox... really what does he know about airplanes?

Besides him being an Aeronautic Engineer which knows so much less than his critics who have
read some story books?

We have had some informative threads and even gotten terms down to something useful enough
to get changes made, a very few times.

We have ALSO had some threads that have sealed off any possibilities of changes made just
because the initial and subsequent claims were made on the wrong terms and got abusive to
the the dev team and others. Baseless shize don't cut it no matter right or wrong.

We have had one thread that got a fix that was at least as bad as what was 'fixed', being
the trim, thanks to the quick, easy and not fully right evaluation of many players. Most
of them were unhappy about how it worked out but that's just tough for everyone.

Boooo-hooooo I think the FW's should dive 2nd to P-47. Some unspecified writers said they
did and it has to be changed to fit! That Gunther Rall guy must be full of it when he
stated that the P-47 and P-51 outdived the German planes. He only flew captured Allied
planes to train LW pilots, what did he know? FW is 2nd best. And those world record dives
set in Spitfires are all lies too! Boooo-hooooooooooo.

If the cybabies think that any member here is too demanding then take your 'facts' to Oleg
and find the whole nother level you just went to. Unless he finds your claim to be not
worth any reply at all and then what do you do? You know it and so does everyone else, you
pitch a b!tch about Oleg!

Just quit whining and present something real. If it's about how the sim performs then yeah
there is tracks that can be run with devicelink and show what happenned. But then you can't
exaggerate and leave things out, which has happenned MANY times here and been exposed.

OTOH you want entertainment then go watch a movie like that last Pearl Harbor revision,
they stick just as close to real as what some people feel this software should be.
Maybe play CFS with your favorite 1337 uZeR MoDz so you know what next to claim as reeel.
Maybe if nobody argues then yet another sim can get equally arcaded because who will care?

Zen, talk to Eco-Dragon about the zoom climbs. Maybe he can straighten you out.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-02-2006, 09:07 PM
Gunz, you just served up a heaping helping of exactly what is being decried here. You add absolutely nothing to the pot, either, just the usual fanboi drivel that Oleg can't possibly be wrong about anything (as if aeronautic engineers have never ever been wrong; hoo boy, is that a funny one...).

I can name at least one case in point where facts were presented to Oleg and he just dug his heels in and stamped his foot (yes, we all know, the old FW190). He won't even discuss the "binocular vision effect", or "refraction" because that'd just shove his foot farther in his mouth.

As far as community suggestions being so seldom used (presumably because St. Oleg thought of them all before we mere mortals... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif), that's wrong, too. Due to the "whining" from the unwashed masses, German 20mm now do damage, icons (when used) can fade out when viewing into the sun, certain planes have been declassified from UFO status... many, many improvements have come about from community suggestions and discoveries that something wasn't right.

Gunz ranted:

Some unspecified writers said they
did and it has to be changed to fit!

You did notice you also contradicted yourself here. I agree with your point that now changes are made based on little or nothing but whining at times, rather than simple basis in fact or history. But if player-suggested changes happen so seldom, then please tell us which of your points is simply wrong, just so we can keep track.

Old_Canuck
04-02-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Dunkelgrun:
'Nuff said really. It used to be possible to learn something on here, or to be entertained/outraged by the threads. Sadly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , no more.

Oh well...

Cheers!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif This forum has over 58,000 posts and climbing daily at almost twice that of the next highest posting forum at the Ubi zoo which is - believe it or not - Prince of Persia forum with about 32,000 posts.

So from those stats. we can deduce that boredom appeals to the majority. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Edit: just click the "view more" link and it appears that the Brothers in Arms forum has a few thousand less bored posters than we have. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

TX-Zen
04-02-2006, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Yeah gee, that "only a game developer" Oleg Maddox... really what does he know about airplanes?

Besides him being an Aeronautic Engineer which knows so much less than his critics who have
read some story books?

We have had some informative threads and even gotten terms down to something useful enough
to get changes made, a very few times.

We have ALSO had some threads that have sealed off any possibilities of changes made just
because the initial and subsequent claims were made on the wrong terms and got abusive to
the the dev team and others. Baseless shize don't cut it no matter right or wrong.

We have had one thread that got a fix that was at least as bad as what was 'fixed', being
the trim, thanks to the quick, easy and not fully right evaluation of many players. Most
of them were unhappy about how it worked out but that's just tough for everyone.

Boooo-hooooo I think the FW's should dive 2nd to P-47. Some unspecified writers said they
did and it has to be changed to fit! That Gunther Rall guy must be full of it when he
stated that the P-47 and P-51 outdived the German planes. He only flew captured Allied
planes to train LW pilots, what did he know? FW is 2nd best. And those world record dives
set in Spitfires are all lies too! Boooo-hooooooooooo.

If the cybabies think that any member here is too demanding then take your 'facts' to Oleg
and find the whole nother level you just went to. Unless he finds your claim to be not
worth any reply at all and then what do you do? You know it and so does everyone else, you
pitch a b!tch about Oleg!

Just quit whining and present something real. If it's about how the sim performs then yeah
there is tracks that can be run with devicelink and show what happenned. But then you can't
exaggerate and leave things out, which has happenned MANY times here and been exposed.

OTOH you want entertainment then go watch a movie like that last Pearl Harbor revision,
they stick just as close to real as what some people feel this software should be.
Maybe play CFS with your favorite 1337 uZeR MoDz so you know what next to claim as reeel.
Maybe if nobody argues then yet another sim can get equally arcaded because who will care?

Zen, talk to Eco-Dragon about the zoom climbs. Maybe he can straighten you out.


I never said that that the 190 should be the second best diving aircraft of the war and the sim should be changed to reflect that. What I did say is that enough pilots said so that I feel comfortable using that as a basis for discussion. Has it been proven conclusively because they said so? Nope, never said that it was. But as I said, it sounds probable and since I'll never know one way or the other, probable is reasonable enough for me.

And as for Eco, he has been a close friend of mine for the past 4 years. We're in the same squad and wing together many times a week. We discuss the sim and the FM in great detail, I respect his opinion very much because he's an amazing aerobatics pilot, level headed, well read and very hands on with what he does. So yes, we have discussed zoom climbing and I'm also quite comfortable with my knowledge on the subject...I wasn't aware that I needed straightening out, but thanks for the suggestion. Speaking of zoom climbing, I never said the zoom climb for the 190 or the spit is wrong. I never said anything at all about zooming, but I did say that my opinion is that there is an issue with what happens when the two styles of aircraft meet in game...not that either one was incorrectly modelled in zoom climb, only that something seems to be missing on the whole.

I also never said Oleg didn't know what he was doing--or that he isn't an expert on the subject. I think he's amply demonstrated his qualifications over the past 5 years. I respect and admire the man in many ways, but like any of us he has been shown to be wrong on a few issues. In and of itself that is perfectly normal and to be expected if you take a reasonable point of view...but some of us here feel that he is apparently never wrong, that he is above questioning and to suggest differently without ironclad proof is to them heresy and not to be tolerated. Those who feel that way are more than welcome to do so in my book, we all have our right to whatever opinion we please, but when those same people take it upon themselves to challenge anyone who questions 1C in the manner in which they do, it really doesn't help the community now does it?

The tone is always the same...sarcastic, accusatory and endlessly labelling the questioner as a whiner, challenging the poster to contact Oleg directly, to 'put up or shut up'. The ironic part is that those people rarely have any contradicting information of their own, all they apparently seek to do is silence the debate without offering a shred of the very same evidence that they continually demand from the one posing the question. I don't see that as particularly helpful to discussion of history, I see it more of a simpleton's way to prevent any challenge or question of the sim because they, and they alone sit in judgement of what is worthy to be debated or not.

And so I think this is the most probable reason why the forums just aren't as interesting or informative as they used to be. A few people have argued everthing into the dirt to where it seems nothing can stand up to the scrutiny they choose to demand and so we have lost the common framework that allows to discuss things in the first place. Without the common framework, what is there to discuss? Nothing has any relevance because it can be and routinely is refuted by people who contradict themselves to the point of stupidity...all in the name of defending 1C from the mass of 'uneducated, uninformed and whining' forum members who are labelled as wanting nothing more than an uber plane. These days I learn virtually nothing related to history, but I am stocked to the brim on all the reasons why everything is correct as it is, why no one is qualified to test anything and why everyone is a whiner.

Shameful don't you think?

Stigler_9_JG52
04-02-2006, 10:35 PM
The other thing to add to that spot-on assessment is the people who demand all the proof don't demand it of Oleg, who we all know is rather close to the vest with his 'secret' sources, sometimes flatly refusing to name them.

Hard to argue the fine points of minutae, even with data in hand, when you can't pin down the source Oleg himself is using.

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 10:42 PM
No Stiglr, what you quoted was my opinion of the drivel you clowns launch.

Let me make this simple enough for people who have missed the point so many times.

If someone argues that Plane X isn't right and down in there it says "because 2 + 2 = 5"
then I may just take them up on their math. Got it? 9 times out of 10 they won't get it
because they're already emotionally wrapped up or like you they are agenda-fixated and
something else. Not because I like to argue everything because... I don't. Not because
of anything else. Just because clearly flawed arguments or the simple lack of anything
workable isn't going to get anywhere but a bunch of baseless whining against the sim which
as far as I can tell IS your agenda.

How many people _feel_ that all dives are the same? Bet there's still a following for it.
Same as with perhaps a half dozen other non-thruths held as 'facts' and never proven.

Yeah you clowns want discussion right up to where someone disagrees and/or asks you to
back your BS up. Then it's no fun anymore. Go play CFS... errrr, Targetware.

fordfan25
04-02-2006, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No Stiglr, what you quoted was my opinion of the drivel you clowns launch.

Let me make this simple enough for people who have missed the point so many times.

If someone argues that Plane X isn't right and down in there it says "because 2 + 2 = 5"
then I may just take them up on their math. Got it? 9 times out of 10 they won't get it
because they're already emotionally wrapped up or like you they are agenda-fixated and
something else. Not because I like to argue everything because... I don't. Not because
of anything else. Just because clearly flawed arguments or the simple lack of anything
workable isn't going to get anywhere but a bunch of baseless whining against the sim which
as far as I can tell IS your agenda.

How many people _feel_ that all dives are the same? Bet there's still a following for it.
Same as with perhaps a half dozen other non-thruths held as 'facts' and never proven.

Yeah you clowns want discussion right up to where someone disagrees and/or asks you to
back your BS up. Then it's no fun anymore. Go play CFS... errrr, Targetware.
"Yeah you clowns want discussion right up to where someone disagrees " you mean like your doing RIGHT NOW lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
1C's credentials and unpublished data are used to discredit anyone making an assertion because how could we, simple forum members, actually have a better understanding of history than the game designer?

Maddox Games made a product better than what came before. Many aspects have been questioned
over the years, I know because I've been on the side questioning more than a couple of times.

Perfect? No. It can't be. Always right? Again no.

Again, this time just for you; I see flawed reasoning behind a claim, as in 2 + 2 = 5 then
I may choose to call on the mistake. If things get dragged down to such vagueness that no
math, science or arguable points are applicable then I say prove your point.

If a boat with as many holes in it as so many claims I've seen here floats then the forum
has turned into a badly arcaded game and the vote for change crowd has taken over.

Things don't fit your picture? First check your picture. Get help if you need it.
If you didn't spot the errors in Pappy's posts then yes, get help with the physics.
The holes in it are easily big enough that all those planes should do just as he found.

Maddox Games made a fine product and improve on it steadily. They fix things shown wrong.
Someone wants something fixed then show it. Want discussion? Then accept and answer to
criticism of the flaws in the claim. That wasn't done for many posts. Just "hey man I
know, the game is wrong" chime in posts. So where's the beef, cause all I see is bun
and salad.

In the meantime I see the sim maligned over flawed conclusions of a very slanted test.
Cut the test down to a reasonable end speed as was argued and the conclusions vanish.
Well yas can't do that because then there's nothing to fault, IS THERE? Where I stand,
that is whining. For y'all it's non-validation of what you've decided before any facts
got in the way, that there's something wrong.

Now you just go do your online and yins cin all agree what a bastage meanie I am.
Big deal. The more ignorance I meet, the meaner I get.

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No Stiglr, what you quoted was my opinion of the drivel you clowns launch.

Let me make this simple enough for people who have missed the point so many times.

If someone argues that Plane X isn't right and down in there it says "because 2 + 2 = 5"
then I may just take them up on their math. Got it? 9 times out of 10 they won't get it
because they're already emotionally wrapped up or like you they are agenda-fixated and
something else. Not because I like to argue everything because... I don't. Not because
of anything else. Just because clearly flawed arguments or the simple lack of anything
workable isn't going to get anywhere but a bunch of baseless whining against the sim which
as far as I can tell IS your agenda.

How many people _feel_ that all dives are the same? Bet there's still a following for it.
Same as with perhaps a half dozen other non-thruths held as 'facts' and never proven.

Yeah you clowns want discussion right up to where someone disagrees and/or asks you to
back your BS up. Then it's no fun anymore. Go play CFS... errrr, Targetware.
"Yeah you clowns want discussion right up to where someone disagrees " you mean like your doing RIGHT NOW lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not discussing? Out of everything you quoted from me, that is ALL you can find to pick?

Hey don't mind me, your tag line about propaganda in two weeks says it all about you.

WWMaxGunz
04-02-2006, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The other thing to add to that spot-on assessment is the people who demand all the proof don't demand it of Oleg,

I bought the product knowing it can't be perfect. Oleg has provided answers enough times and
changed enough things to keep me as a customer. He has shown many times the flaws in data
presented. But no, it's not perfect and no I'm not real happy with the views, the way the
trim works or the 190 gunsight picture just to mention three places.

I'm not real happy about some of what I've seen in low speed climb but I have found that my
earlier ideas about full power at low speed were not on the mark, thanks to Oleg and a few
here who present real information instead of half-fast rhetoric. Besides, the last couple
three patches seem to be toning that down as I can't do some of the stunts at the same speeds
I could.

I don't expect perfect and I'm very wary of your idea of accurate. I know it means that the
end result has to be what you want.

SeaFireLIV
04-02-2006, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by Dunkelgrun:
'Nuff said really. It used to be possible to learn something on here, or to be entertained/outraged by the threads. Sadly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , no more.

Oh well...

Cheers!

I think you`re right. The fizzle`s gone....

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2006, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Shameful don't you think?

Well I never said a lot of what you exaggerate out of my posts but you have no problems at it.
Too bad you don't like it coming back in your direction.

When I post about errors in an argument even after it's been pointed out while I was typing
and that gets ignored then yeah I get a bit peeved. I'm sure you know the feeling.

If you expect that I think that I am the final arbiter of anything here then you are mistaken.
As you are with much else.

If I got as much baseless grief over a product as Oleg and Team have, I would not be easily
receptive to any kinds of criticism from the same direction. And you know where that thread
started by any chance? Not in GD.

You know the reputation of these forums, the UBI ZOO? You know why? And you argue for this
thread?

No, that's it for me. This was nuts from the 8th post on.

Ob.Emann
04-03-2006, 02:08 AM
No epic 28 page "debates"

No new "controversial-pilot-anecdote-or-guncam-footage-of-the-week".

No relentlessely self-promoting accounts of online dogfighting exploits.

No teary-eyed, pugnative, and/or nationalistic diatribes concerning a nation's involvment in WWII.

No softcore porn threads

No baiting, coupled with a depressing decline in the pejorative use of the word "Nazi".

No new catchphrases, and a notable decline in catchphrase use, no doubt due to the absence of a few noted posters.

No esoteric soccer threads

No Anglo-centric culture threads

No "won teh war" threads, either of serious or sarcastic intention.

No TAGERT.............


It truly has been depressing as of late. Where did the forum's Golden Idols of Posterhood go? I'm getting more and more bothered by the recent inactivity and decline of idiocy, as I'm beginning to like it...............

rnzoli
04-03-2006, 02:58 AM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
The tone is always the same...sarcastic, accusatory and endlessly labelling the questioner as a whiner, challenging the poster to contact Oleg directly, to 'put up or shut up'. [...] all they apparently seek to do is silence the debate without offering a shred of the very same evidence that they continually demand from the one posing the question. I don't see that as particularly helpful to discussion of history, I see it more of a simpleton's way to prevent any challenge or question of the sim because they, and they alone sit in judgement of what is worthy to be debated or not.

In your opinion, why do people take that position? I am a bit puzzled about this, so would be good what you think:
- are they paid to suppress debates and defend the developers?
- do they behave like this for personal prestige maybe?
- do they have their own über-plane, and don't want a competition to that?

So in short, what could be the motivation for people like that?

HelSqnProtos
04-03-2006, 03:12 AM
S~!

Wow Max,

I just finished reading this thead and have to say I thought you were an idiot before -- but you have gone to a whole new level. Put down the crack pipe and leave good guys and solid pilots like Zen alone. His post was honest, measured and reasonable. It also happened to be very correct in that a very few people DO now have control of the sim and that in the old days there was a higher level of debate. Which is precisely what you fear apparently.

Oleg isn't going to pop you brownie points for kissing his heinie. Much as you try. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Lucius_Esox
04-03-2006, 03:28 AM
Seems there is a large group of people who deem being right or wrong more important than the exchange of knowledge.

In the real world exams would be failed and situations where this mindset could be applied would be very limited,,, you wouldn't get a job as an architect, aeronautical engineer, phycisist etc. To many hoops to jump through to, would weed this sort of cr*p out,, hopefully!!

Actually I say very limited then I thought of politicians http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

WTE_Ibis
04-03-2006, 03:37 AM
TX-Zen
*Da Z Machine*

A great post my man, exactly right on the money,
not a criticism of Oleg at all but a damning and true critique of some of the knockers of fair an open debate on this forum.
I truly miss the old days and I have to admit I miss the back and forth of the mono-browed one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif One needs a little spice.


.

Megile_
04-03-2006, 05:33 AM
So much hatin' in this thread.

As a great man once said.. don't ace hate!

TacticalYak3
04-03-2006, 06:30 AM
Good thread. You do realize, however, folks that if anyone is to blame concerning the atmosphere at these forums it is not Oleg or even certain Moderators but us. Too many agendas are being pursued here, and far too many egos needing to be stroked in every flaming thread.

Putting aside endless opportunities to argue about FM/DM perfection, this community has disallowed any meaningful discussion to explore new game options and enhancements over the years. Such discussions are almost immediately dismissed in-lieu of the more serious sim discussion of FM/DM.

Anyway, common sense should tell the community by now that the developers of this very enjoyable sim don't hold all the answers, nor should they be expected as they too must rely upon the same sources as folks here. Moreover, the differences in the patches over the years with changes (sometimes significant) for certain planes testify of this reality.

I for one have never expected or accepted that a gaming developer, even one with an engineer (we have lots of engineers in our city too, try finding two that agree on anything! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif), had all the facts concerning such a wide variety of planes from over 60 years ago (much less have them correctly implemented).

I do support an atmosphere here that encourages meaningful discussion about our enjoyment of this sim and WW2 aviation in general. While I enjoy the dialogue at other IL-2 forums elsewhere, it is indeed a shame that we can€t more fully enjoy these official game forums here. In the end this game provides me with the fantasy of pretending to be a WW2 ace once in a while. Personally not looking to win any arguments, nor be the target of someone's poor manners at these disfunctional forums.

Regards,
TS!

Badsight.
04-03-2006, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
No epic 28 page "debates"

No new "controversial-pilot-anecdote-or-guncam-footage-of-the-week".

No relentlessely self-promoting accounts of online dogfighting exploits.

No teary-eyed, pugnative, and/or nationalistic diatribes concerning a nation's involvment in WWII.

No softcore porn threads

No baiting, coupled with a depressing decline in the pejorative use of the word "Nazi".

No new catchphrases, and a notable decline in catchphrase use, no doubt due to the absence of a few noted posters.

No esoteric soccer threads

No Anglo-centric culture threads

No "won teh war" threads, either of serious or sarcastic intention.

No TAGERT.............


It truly has been depressing as of late. Where did the forum's Golden Idols of Posterhood go? I'm getting more and more bothered by the recent inactivity and decline of idiocy, as I'm beginning to like it............... heh heh , there was a time where FB was the ONLY damm thing i was going to do . . . . all day long . . . . . new patch ? well stuff work - i HAVE to know whats changed

no other game has come remotely close to the obsession FB has . the harder-to-control 4.xx FM definantly killed off some of the enthusiasm

but then again the amount that each patched got me hooked was less & less . 2.01 was the last FB all-nighter i pulled - i didnt even bother to DL the v4.03 leak :O - even the Trolls lost all class over the last year - with them being serious an' all with their hang-ups

still the community never fails to start a fight - even in a "Well hasn't this forum become boring?" thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG5_UnKle
04-03-2006, 07:54 AM
Just mention GT

that should do it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Megile_
04-03-2006, 09:44 AM
Galen thhhhurber is a legend in his own house.

His mommy is so proud

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 09:54 AM
Who is this Galen T?

Megile_
04-03-2006, 10:22 AM
I'm suspicious of anynone who asks that question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

He is an Internet-Webforum Uber Comedian, hated across 5 different time zones, and banned from 27 forums.

I thought he was pretty funny... angry, but funny

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Wow Max,

I just finished reading this thead and have to say I thought you were an idiot before -- but you have gone to a whole new level. Put down the crack pipe and leave good guys and solid pilots like Zen alone. His post was honest, measured and reasonable. It also happened to be very correct in that a very few people DO now have control of the sim and that in the old days there was a higher level of debate. Which is precisely what you fear apparently.

Oleg isn't going to pop you brownie points for kissing his heinie. Much as you try. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Okay, here's your crack pipe back. I don't know why you pass it to me anyway, I guess you
think the stuff's okay if you think his posting has been honest given circumstances.
You can believe Bin Ladan is a humanitarian living in Paris too.

There is only one person with any degree of control over the sim and he doesn't post here
much at all due to the whining. He used to make informative posts about the sim but he
was driven off by hordes of rude demanding a-holes with no basis for their claims which
they posted over and over and got their buddies to back up on.

If I try to kiss Oleg's butt then why do I take the opposite side for so many issues?
So much for your honesty, ya cheap shot artist. Just admit I've pointed out screwups
you've made and no you see your big chance.

Please, explain the high level debate that was quashed in the zoom climb thread.
Or would you rather not back your drivel up?

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Megile_:
I'm suspicious of anynone who asks that question. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

He is an Internet-Webforum Uber Comedian, hated across 5 different time zones, and banned from 27 forums.

I thought he was pretty funny... angry, but funny
Thanks Megile. Sounds like a very likable chap, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">NOT</span>. Any idea of what became of him?

faustnik
04-03-2006, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The other thing to add to that spot-on assessment is the people who demand all the proof don't demand it of Oleg, who we all know is rather close to the vest with his 'secret' sources, sometimes flatly refusing to name them.

Hard to argue the fine points of minutae, even with data in hand, when you can't pin down the source Oleg himself is using.

Why is Oleg required to show us "proof" of anything? He has provided us with a quality product and excellent support of that product. He does his best to answer a lot of our questions on the forums and by answering our personal emails. What more can you ask of the guy?

Demanding things of Oleg just makes us look like jerks.

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2006, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
Seems there is a large group of people who deem being right or wrong more important than the exchange of knowledge.

In the real world exams would be failed and situations where this mindset could be applied would be very limited,,, you wouldn't get a job as an architect, aeronautical engineer, phycisist etc. To many hoops to jump through to, would weed this sort of cr*p out,, hopefully!!

Actually I say very limited then I thought of politicians http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Imagine a world where half baked gossip could be passed as knowledge.

Then we could have people making decisions based on what is popular. Like there is no global
warming and cigarettes are okay enough to warrant subsidies, millions of addicts can't be
wrong.

Oh wait, we have that now. They don't design or build anything. They just sit and pick and
get phoney science from paid-for corporate 'scientists' to twist information however is
needed to steer the herd mentality of the average voters. They make speeches and do not
feel any need to back jack up.

Let them be architects and buildings will fall. But until then they will be popular.
Let them design planes and cars. There is too much population as it is, nah?
But above all, people can smile and think how much 'information' they're exchanging.
Just too bad it can't be bagged and sold. There are places where cheap fertilizer is needed.

----------------------------------------

Is that your point perhaps?

In science and engineering there is this method where what you propose must pass review.

It is not very popular among astrologers, palm readers, and religious fundamentalists.
And since they have so many supporters they feel their own rightness, forget the review
and pass the decrees on as knowledge... errr, information. The stars say so in hollyweird.

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The other thing to add to that spot-on assessment is the people who demand all the proof don't demand it of Oleg, who we all know is rather close to the vest with his 'secret' sources, sometimes flatly refusing to name them.

Hard to argue the fine points of minutae, even with data in hand, when you can't pin down the source Oleg himself is using.

Why is Oleg required to show us "proof" of anything? He has provided us with a quality product and excellent support of that product. He does his best to answer a lot of our questions on the forums and by answering our personal emails. What more can you ask of the guy?

Demanding things of Oleg just makes us look like jerks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Oleg asks for all kinds of proofs from us, but in return supplies nothing when questioned on Russian a/c.

WWMaxGunz
04-03-2006, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
Demanding things of Oleg just makes us look like jerks.

S! Faustnik! (just to letcha know this ain't to drag ya down)

I don't think we were jerks to push for correct 151/20 ammo mix once it was shown to be in error.
Funny but that time someone (was it Tiger Talon?) was able to prove a point clearly and was not
shot down for it.

Hey, isn't that supposed to be impossible on these forums?
I bet you can name a number of other such things much the same.

What I've seen is Oleg responding to such and often the change is made but sometimes not.
The times he hasn't have most every time been due to hardware or time/budget limits or just that
the arguments or sources were flawed. In the latter case it just ruins the agendas of the
supporters and we end up with forum members holding grudges that only get worse. Like Stig.

faustnik
04-03-2006, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I don't think we were jerks to push for correct 151/20 ammo mix once it was shown to be in error.

There is nothing wrong with asking, maybe even pushing a little. "Demanding" is something different. Your Mg151 example is a good one, and there are others, of Oleg making a change based on a compelling argument. Too many people think they are right won't accept anything to the contrary.

willyvic
04-03-2006, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The other thing to add to that spot-on assessment is the people who demand all the proof don't demand it of Oleg, who we all know is rather close to the vest with his 'secret' sources, sometimes flatly refusing to name them.

Hard to argue the fine points of minutae, even with data in hand, when you can't pin down the source Oleg himself is using.

Why is Oleg required to show us "proof" of anything? He has provided us with a quality product and excellent support of that product. He does his best to answer a lot of our questions on the forums and by answering our personal emails. What more can you ask of the guy?

Demanding things of Oleg just makes us look like jerks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect faustnik, I don't believe that a demand is what is referred to. The point is that we have asked about "sources" in the past and have been refused. It is a bit disconcerting that meaningful discussion is handicapped due to the unavailabilty of all pertinent information. Open dialogue/argument with the developer(s) is difficult when one is not privy to all the data.

I find it does fall in line with Max's statement of:
" In science and engineering there is this method where what you propose must pass review..."


Now, you can argue that we are not entitled to the information, but it would not help the furtherance of mindful disscussion.

Please bear in mind that I have no "agenda". I do not argue for the sake of argument. For many years I have read the heated discussions, viewed the data presented by the members, and attempted to remain objective. I will continue to do so. But it would be pleasing to be able to view all the historical data that was used to put together this wonderful game. Maybe some day.

WV.

Lucius_Esox
04-03-2006, 11:39 AM
Is that your point perhaps?

In science and engineering there is this method where what you propose must pass review.

It is not very popular among astrologers, palm readers, and religious fundamentalists.
And since they have so many supporters they feel their own rightness, forget the review
and pass the decrees on as knowledge... errr, information. The stars say so in hollyweird.

What Star sign are you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DaimonSyrius
04-03-2006, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Oleg asks for all kinds of proofs from us, but in return supplies nothing when questioned on Russian a/c.
What planet do you live in?

No matter if you own a Volkswagen car or a Toyota or a Chrysler, if you want to file a complaint about the car maker's choice of mechanism for -say, for instance- the speedometer, because according to you it's not reading accurately in km/h or mph or whatever, they're going to want to see data about that. On the other hand, if they would decide to change the shape of the steering wheel from round to oval, you'd have a hard time to get them to satisfy you personally with better explanations than what their marketing or PR dept. may see fit.

If the developer of IL2 likes to discuss his own creation -and the product he is professionally committed to- on internet forums, he will do so, and I understand he has a record of doing so in the past. If he gets fed up with the demanding tone or attitude he is approached with in those discussions, he won't go to those forums to be 'demanded' explanations anymore. As simple as that. You're free to e-mail them, you're free to buy their products and enjoy them or not. And of course, you're free (we all are) to keep discussing endlessly in the forums about whether they are right or wrong, fair or biased.

Cheers,
S.

crazyivan1970
04-03-2006, 11:47 AM
Wow, what an eye opener. And as always, some community members are playing finger pointing games, instead of looking at themselves. How convenient.

And people, you are old enough to understand that nothing comes free in this world. For instance, why in the world Maddox is obligated to show you his sources of info that he paid ####load of money for? Because you are in great doubt? Or maybe he will give you stuff that he signed NDA for too? Why not, eh €" inquiring minds want to know, right? Some of you should re-read Zen`s post, right up your alley. Great post Zen! And as far as censorship on this forum, please €" weak argument. Nobody is ripping your right for freedom of speech, don€t even go there. There is set of rules, pretty flexible too, not that hard to follow for 30+ year old men.

AKA_Hitcher
04-03-2006, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Wow, what an eye opener. And as always, some community members are playing finger pointing games, instead of looking at themselves. How convenient.

Exactly, Ivan! Exactly!

luftluuver
04-03-2006, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
What planet do you live on?

If the developer of IL2 likes to discuss his own creation -and the product he is professionally committed to- on internet forums, he will do so, and I understand he has a record of doing so in the past. If he gets fed up with the demanding tone or attitude he is approached with in those discussions, he won't go to those forums to be 'demanded' explanations anymore. As simple as that. You're free to e-mail them, you're free to buy their products and enjoy them or not. And of course, you're free (we all are) to keep discussing endlessly in the forums about whether they are right or wrong, fair or biased.

Cheers,
S.[/QUOTE]What universe do you live in?

Read willyvic's post.

Actually, I don't care about the modelling of Russian a/c but I would like better info than what can be found in Western sources.

Gee Ivan, many supply info that they paid hard earned money to obtain. Do you think the PRO is a welfare office? The USAF archives info is not free.

Btw, he could give the sources where he obtained his info from. Those interested then could pay for that info.

willyvic
04-03-2006, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
...And people, you are old enough to understand that nothing comes free in this world. For instance, why in the world Maddox is obligated to show you his sources of info that he paid ####load of money for? Because you are in great doubt? Or maybe he will give you stuff that he signed NDA for too? Why not, eh €" inquiring minds want to know, right? ...

CI,
I hope that it would not be asked that Oleg dislose any information that would violate a NDA. But as to the "sources" he paid #### of money for, I do not recall any mention of where this information may be aquired. Some here appear passionate enough with the issue to pursue it. If it is proprietary to the development of the game then let it be stated. But as it sits now, a lot of what is agrued is baseless because one side is arguing against an unknown. And any historcal evidence that is brought forward is sometimes met with "you are wrong", end of story. I can see where it is frustrating to some to be dismissed so out of hand.

Personally, I enjoy the hell out of this game. I adapt to how it performs. I learn to control the game as it is presented. Do I get frustrated with the many changes that have been applied? Sure. But I get over it and continue to play.

Bottom line is that although I am not one who is passionate about the intricacies of simulated flight, I recognize that there are those that are. And I support open dialogue and healthy argument in an effort to improve upon this game.

WV.

Deedsundone
04-03-2006, 12:41 PM
All you need is a song and you will be happy and life will shine its glory light on you again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
http://rapidshare.de/files/17125980/Interlude_2.wmv.html

crazyivan1970
04-03-2006, 01:23 PM
Willy, more then once Oleg said that he cannot publish the documents, it`s not like i am making it up. Paid alot of money and NDA come together mate, they like brothers. If you paid, NDA comes along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Nobody wants to get their data spread out all over the net.

As far as changes go, people dont even realize that reason of the changes is THEM. Something they could prove. There is a pretty large crowd that doesnt post on this forum or any other forum, which provides serious ducments and things get changed. If some folks get an idea that Maddox changes stuff just for the hell of it or to pss people off, they are wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Those who tried to make a difference know what it takes to prove something. You know who you are. Some succeeded, some not.

OMK_Hand
04-03-2006, 02:17 PM
Oxymoron?

willyvic
04-03-2006, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Willy, more then once...

Thanks for the input and clarification. I appreciate it. It won't end the debates but at least more info is added to the mix.

Looking forward,
WV.

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
No Stiglr, what you quoted was my opinion of the drivel you clowns launch.

Let me make this simple enough for people who have missed the point so many times.

If someone argues that Plane X isn't right and down in there it says "because 2 + 2 = 5"
then I may just take them up on their math. Got it? 9 times out of 10 they won't get it
because they're already emotionally wrapped up or like you they are agenda-fixated and
something else. Not because I like to argue everything because... I don't. Not because
of anything else. Just because clearly flawed arguments or the simple lack of anything
workable isn't going to get anywhere but a bunch of baseless whining against the sim which
as far as I can tell IS your agenda.

How many people _feel_ that all dives are the same? Bet there's still a following for it.
Same as with perhaps a half dozen other non-thruths held as 'facts' and never proven.

Yeah you clowns want discussion right up to where someone disagrees and/or asks you to
back your BS up. Then it's no fun anymore. Go play CFS... errrr, Targetware.
"Yeah you clowns want discussion right up to where someone disagrees " you mean like your doing RIGHT NOW lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not discussing? Out of everything you quoted from me, that is ALL you can find to pick?

Hey don't mind me, your tag line about propaganda in two weeks says it all about you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no there was pleanty of BS to choose from. thats just what was the best.and your aparint take on my tag line says it all about you

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
S~!

Wow Max,

I just finished reading this thead and have to say I thought you were an idiot before -- but you have gone to a whole new level. Put down the crack pipe and leave good guys and solid pilots like Zen alone. His post was honest, measured and reasonable. It also happened to be very correct in that a very few people DO now have control of the sim and that in the old days there was a higher level of debate. Which is precisely what you fear apparently.

Oleg isn't going to pop you brownie points for kissing his heinie. Much as you try. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif LMFAO. i dont know he might send him a cookie http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Megile_
04-03-2006, 04:37 PM
Fordfan gets that this thread is a joke.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 04:44 PM
every thread is a joke thread to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Wow, what an eye opener. And as always, some community members are playing finger pointing games, instead of looking at themselves. How convenient. so wich are you the pot or the kettele ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

MB_Avro_UK
04-03-2006, 05:29 PM
Become boring ??

My thread is very interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/9311023924

More later !!

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

WarWolfe_1
04-03-2006, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Dunkelgrun:
'Nuff said really. It used to be possible to learn something on here, or to be entertained/outraged by the threads. Sadly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , no more.

Oh well...

Cheers!

Troll

willyvic
04-03-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV.

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>he sould wright a book says I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WarWolfe_1
04-03-2006, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I'm sorry did I offend you delicate feelings?

WarWolfe_1
04-03-2006, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>he sould wright a book says I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fordfan I thought better of you than that.....A shame to see wit go to waste http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 10:39 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>he sould wright a book says I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fordfan I thought better of you than that.....A shame to see wit go to waste http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>o come on i was just kidding i even put in a smiley. i mean who reads books http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

WarWolfe_1
04-03-2006, 10:45 PM
where do you find books at?

WarWolfe_1
04-03-2006, 10:47 PM
The man wanted more banter, and people lash out when they see it, I wont point any fingers "<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">willyvic </span>", so go figure that. lol!

fordfan25
04-03-2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
where do you find books at? same place i find evry thing else WALLMART its the low price leader you know.

GR142-Pipper
04-04-2006, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
Whats interesting to me is that there are many things in the sim which don't jive with history...but any attempt to quantify why is met with the tired demand for absolute proof, as though they know and the poster doesn't. God forbid if you come in here without all your facts straight, but amusingly enough, as far as I can tell having your facts in order doesn't matter either because those facts are inevitably subjective and therefore easily discounted. Zen, your observations about this forum ring true. There's one other aspect to this matter that deserves comment. Most here have absolutely no real flying or other meaningful real world aviation experience by which to judge much of the information being presented. In short, most wouldn't know truth from fiction regardless of the accuracy of what's being presented. They ask for "proof" and have no way to judge it's validity. This important fact as well as the other adverse discussion environmentals which exist here have largely rendered dialogue moot as you have accurately described.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2006, 01:51 AM
Geez Pip, you have something to prove AND the means to prove it but you never took the step.
Where's the dual tracks made by you and your mate of 109 and P-51 showing what you say?
Your point is entirely provable as it was ONLY about what goes on in the sim!
But no-ooooo!
Your word alone is all that should be needed. Even though there is no measure of how much.
Screw everyone who says the 109 bleeds faster than the P-51 at least then and that slowed
down it can run a tighter radius turn at the same G's and will appear EXACTLY as you stated.

Oh wait. I see the error of mine and the others telling you that.
We tried to discuss and debate and you the expert know better, told us to stuff it.

Yep, I see your light.

GR142-Pipper
04-04-2006, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
The other thing to add to that spot-on assessment is the people who demand all the proof don't demand it of Oleg, who we all know is rather close to the vest with his 'secret' sources, sometimes flatly refusing to name them.

Hard to argue the fine points of minutae, even with data in hand, when you can't pin down the source Oleg himself is using.

Why is Oleg required to show us "proof" of anything? He has provided us with a quality product and excellent support of that product.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Easy. The wide changes in the flight and damage models in the 4.0x series have clearly provided the basis for asking the developer to explain just exactly what is happening. Heck, the developers won't even spell out what changes occur from patch to patch. To be clear, Oleg isn't "required" to do anything. But let's not talk out of both sides of our mouth by stating how involved Oleg is on one hand yet fail to recognize how he won't even discuss the specifics of patch changes on the other. You can't have it both ways...and be credible.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-04-2006, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Geez Pip, you have something to prove AND the means to prove it but you never took the step.
Where's the dual tracks made by you and your mate of 109 and P-51 showing what you say?
Your point is entirely provable as it was ONLY about what goes on in the sim!
But no-ooooo!
Your word alone is all that should be needed. Even though there is no measure of how much.
Screw everyone who says the 109 bleeds faster than the P-51 at least then and that slowed
down it can run a tighter radius turn at the same G's and will appear EXACTLY as you stated.

Oh wait. I see the error of mine and the others telling you that.
We tried to discuss and debate and you the expert know better, told us to stuff it.

Yep, I see your light. Unfortunately Max, you really don't see anything...and you like it that way.

GR142-Pipper

ploughman
04-04-2006, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
No epic 28 page "debates"

No new "controversial-pilot-anecdote-or-guncam-footage-of-the-week".

No relentlessely self-promoting accounts of online dogfighting exploits.

No teary-eyed, pugnative, and/or nationalistic diatribes concerning a nation's involvment in WWII.

No softcore porn threads

No baiting, coupled with a depressing decline in the pejorative use of the word "Nazi".

No new catchphrases, and a notable decline in catchphrase use, no doubt due to the absence of a few noted posters.

No esoteric soccer threads

No Anglo-centric culture threads

No "won teh war" threads, either of serious or sarcastic intention.

No TAGERT.............


It truly has been depressing as of late. Where did the forum's Golden Idols of Posterhood go? I'm getting more and more bothered by the recent inactivity and decline of idiocy, as I'm beginning to like it...............

You noticed that too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I haven't seen Low_Flyer_Mk_V on here in weeks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I got a vacation for making a Lemming reference. Time was you could really insult people on here.

I was reading a thread the other day which suggested the Spit was over modelled (again), and it didn't have a shred of real world data anywhere in sight and no-one noticed. Time was if you're first post wasn't thesis level and teflon coated you'd be toast. Standards certainly are dropping around here.

And another thing, the quality of whining...

Megile_
04-04-2006, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>he sould wright a book says I http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Fordfan I thought better of you than that.....A shame to see wit go to waste http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>o come on i was just kidding i even put in a smiley. i mean who reads books http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

quotes make posts look like they will have a point to make, until you read the content. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
04-04-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by Dunkelgrun:
'Nuff said really. It used to be possible to learn something on here, or to be entertained/outraged by the threads. Sadly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif , no more.

Oh well...

Cheers!

Well I was only gone for a week for Pete's sake

faustnik
04-04-2006, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

Easy. The wide changes in the flight and damage models in the 4.0x series have clearly provided the basis for asking the developer to explain just exactly what is happening. Heck, the developers won't even spell out what changes occur from patch to patch. To be clear, Oleg isn't "required" to do anything. But let's not talk out of both sides of our mouth by stating how involved Oleg is on one hand yet fail to recognize how he won't even discuss the specifics of patch changes on the other. You can't have it both ways...and be credible.

GR142-Pipper

Well, there was a time when Oleg did discuss issues in this forum, and he was rewarded with endless whining and claims of bias. He might have thought "why bother"? I agree with you that I would like to hear the reasons for FM changes.

He is probably also tired of people who claim to know it all because they are real pilots, but, offer nothing other than baseless complaints. Who can blame him for avoiding that type of garbage?

Chuck_Older
04-04-2006, 10:32 AM
See I disagree, Pipper

I don't think Oleg is required to explain anything, and I also don't think his silence is proof of anything at all. Nothing proves...nothing

What you seem to be saying is that since he isn't talking, something shady is going on, so why doesn't he explain himself?

That's not how it works. I'm not required to defend every word I say to the death, and neither is Oleg. Just ebcause I don't provide a defense or an answer sometimes is more an indicator that I don't care to explain, than I am wrong

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Geez Pip, you have something to prove AND the means to prove it but you never took the step.
Where's the dual tracks made by you and your mate of 109 and P-51 showing what you say?
Your point is entirely provable as it was ONLY about what goes on in the sim!
But no-ooooo!
Your word alone is all that should be needed. Even though there is no measure of how much.
Screw everyone who says the 109 bleeds faster than the P-51 at least then and that slowed
down it can run a tighter radius turn at the same G's and will appear EXACTLY as you stated.

Oh wait. I see the error of mine and the others telling you that.
We tried to discuss and debate and you the expert know better, told us to stuff it.

Yep, I see your light. Unfortunately Max, you really don't see anything...and you like it that way.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see JACK from you backing anything up and FYI, I really don't care.
All it means is I one less tale teller I don't take seriously.

WWMaxGunz
04-04-2006, 11:39 AM
There are some problems with very complex code that has to run on a wide variety of machines
in real time and making it do exactly what you want but in a realistic manner. It takes
impossibly longer than people are willing to wait.

OTOH if the code is a glorified next level table driven method with extra calcs thrown in
then it's very possible but the feel will give it away, the old term for table driven FM is
'on rails'.

So we get patches and leaks often enough that the patch madness doesn't go critical mass
and what do some people expect? It says enough when they take what they get as some kind
of message or sign of whatever fantasy enters their heads and explains sooooo much.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning for people with limited reading and comprehension skills: skip the rest.

History generally has multiple versions especially once opinion gets into it. Even source
documents get called on as propaganda or perhaps a bit less. I go to the best Spitfire
site I know and right on the opening page I read how RAEE all but rubber stamped corporate
figures. So no matter what you take as true, someone has a different answer. Or makes one
occasionally through their own records and creative synthesis that may or may not be good.

So here we have Maddox Games who has made a PC game to what they feel is the best specs
they can assemble and check. They have the expertise to do that and spent real money on
some sources plus take what is sent in and evaluate that.

The game running on current hardware and doing all it does is a step down from the specs.
It has to be. It is IMPOSSIBLE to fit and run all the known data and formulae in best
form at any kind of framerate above many seconds per frame. Impossible. There has to be
shortcuts and decisions what is to keep and what is to leave out. The FM changes from IL2
to FB and at least 3.x to 4.x are mainly more parts of the known flight being added in
(Oleg says more modes of flight). Every time that is done yes right things will change.
The performances would be closer if we only could wait much longer and if maddox Games
could afford to. Then there'd be less to complain about given the wait is no problem.

So they make a product the best they can and someone yells to change it while others want
different sometimes opposite changes and every change requires much work and how in blazes
anyone can't see why it is right for Oleg to demand a watertight case for any change while
not having to trot out what he LEGALLY CANNOT is proof just how blind those people can be.

Ya don't like it, make yer own and put it out for the same kind of treatment.

No, I'm not brown nosing. I appreciate what Maddox Games has presented for reasons of I
have done that kind of work and I have bought and played worse sims before.

On the other side there are people who get a case of emotion and come out with the most
childishly spiteful attacks they can devise or show their 'maturity' by devising what they
might think is subtle and then push it over and over again.

Don't demand, ask. You don't know what is even possible or affordable to do. Find out by
asking.

Don't state that 'X is wrong'... ask and say why you ask. Two years spent with arguments on
151/20 shells being underpowered and from replies I can well guess that the properties of
those shells and how they react with the DM's was checked individually maybe more than once
and checked out right. The replies were true within the scope of the stated problem. The
unhappy people just got ruder and invented all kinds of BS about everything anywhere near
the subject, posted that way often and confused the issue more and more. TWO YEARS OVER BS.
And then Tiger Talon and another found the REAL PROBLEM and I can say that JUST BECUASE of
the BS and whining that getting right attention and a fix took much longer than it would
have. But the victory is that it did get fixed within the limits of the game engine despite
the mountains of krap the whiners put up, only because a good and checkable case was made.

Don't like the energy retention? Good luck making a case the way it's being done now.
I'm sure that demanding Oleg for what he is and has been demanded is really going to help.
NOT.

Capt.England
04-04-2006, 02:22 PM
The only things that I want to see proved is....


Does Oleg exist?
Who's met him in real life?
Is he just a P.R. stunt?
Is Ivan really crazy?

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

willyvic
04-04-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I'm sorry did I offend you delicate feelings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not I, says he. But it does appear that your skin is thinning a bit WW. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif And http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif you haven't SEEN me lashing out yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

But your reply has elicited a response from me so mayhaps the original you said that I said that you said did serve a purpose in making things more interesting.

I stand ready for your next salvo kind sir.

WV

ploughman
04-04-2006, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
There are some problems with very complex code that has to run on a wide variety of machines
in real time and making it do exactly what you want but in a realistic manner. It takes
impossibly longer than people are willing to wait.

OTOH if the code is a glorified next level table driven method with extra calcs thrown in
then it's very possible but the feel will give it away, the old term for table driven FM is
'on rails'.

So we get patches and leaks often enough that the patch madness doesn't go critical mass
and what do some people expect? It says enough when they take what they get as some kind
of message or sign of whatever fantasy enters their heads and explains sooooo much.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warning for people with limited reading and comprehension skills: skip the rest.

History generally has multiple versions especially once opinion gets into it. Even source
documents get called on as propaganda or perhaps a bit less. I go to the best Spitfire
site I know and right on the opening page I read how RAEE all but rubber stamped corporate
figures. So no matter what you take as true, someone has a different answer. Or makes one
occasionally through their own records and creative synthesis that may or may not be good.

So here we have Maddox Games who has made a PC game to what they feel is the best specs
they can assemble and check. They have the expertise to do that and spent real money on
some sources plus take what is sent in and evaluate that.

The game running on current hardware and doing all it does is a step down from the specs.
It has to be. It is IMPOSSIBLE to fit and run all the known data and formulae in best
form at any kind of framerate above many seconds per frame. Impossible. There has to be
shortcuts and decisions what is to keep and what is to leave out. The FM changes from IL2
to FB and at least 3.x to 4.x are mainly more parts of the known flight being added in
(Oleg says more modes of flight). Every time that is done yes right things will change.
The performances would be closer if we only could wait much longer and if maddox Games
could afford to. Then there'd be less to complain about given the wait is no problem.

So they make a product the best they can and someone yells to change it while others want
different sometimes opposite changes and every change requires much work and how in blazes
anyone can't see why it is right for Oleg to demand a watertight case for any change while
not having to trot out what he LEGALLY CANNOT is proof just how blind those people can be.

Ya don't like it, make yer own and put it out for the same kind of treatment.

No, I'm not brown nosing. I appreciate what Maddox Games has presented for reasons of I
have done that kind of work and I have bought and played worse sims before.

On the other side there are people who get a case of emotion and come out with the most
childishly spiteful attacks they can devise or show their 'maturity' by devising what they
might think is subtle and then push it over and over again.

Don't demand, ask. You don't know what is even possible or affordable to do. Find out by
asking.

Don't state that 'X is wrong'... ask and say why you ask. Two years spent with arguments on
151/20 shells being underpowered and from replies I can well guess that the properties of
those shells and how they react with the DM's was checked individually maybe more than once
and checked out right. The replies were true within the scope of the stated problem. The
unhappy people just got ruder and invented all kinds of BS about everything anywhere near
the subject, posted that way often and confused the issue more and more. TWO YEARS OVER BS.
And then Tiger Talon and another found the REAL PROBLEM and I can say that JUST BECUASE of
the BS and whining that getting right attention and a fix took much longer than it would
have. But the victory is that it did get fixed within the limits of the game engine despite
the mountains of krap the whiners put up, only because a good and checkable case was made.

Don't like the energy retention? Good luck making a case the way it's being done now.
I'm sure that demanding Oleg for what he is and has been demanded is really going to help.
NOT.

That was brilliant. You slipped in an anti-Spitfire diatribe by couching it in some soporific paragraphless drivel head-lined with a "this is duller than corrosion" deflection.

Hat's off to you sir!

Energy retention? Not 'arf!

WarWolfe_1
04-04-2006, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:

Troll

Masterful stroke of writing. No, really. Adds so much to the thread.

Geez, we all must be getting a little looney.

WV. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

I'm sorry did I offend you delicate feelings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not I, says he. But it does appear that your skin is thinning a bit WW. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif And http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif you haven't SEEN me lashing out yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

But your reply has elicited a response from me so mayhaps the original you said that I said that you said did serve a purpose in making things more interesting.

I stand ready for your next salvo kind sir.

WV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Naaaaaaaaa I'm not thin skinned http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Just looking to make things a little fun http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BaldieJr
04-04-2006, 04:14 PM
i think the forums are the same as they were when i registered.

the game is long in the tooth. let it go.

GR142-Pipper
04-04-2006, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:

Easy. The wide changes in the flight and damage models in the 4.0x series have clearly provided the basis for asking the developer to explain just exactly what is happening. Heck, the developers won't even spell out what changes occur from patch to patch. To be clear, Oleg isn't "required" to do anything. But let's not talk out of both sides of our mouth by stating how involved Oleg is on one hand yet fail to recognize how he won't even discuss the specifics of patch changes on the other. You can't have it both ways...and be credible.

GR142-Pipper

Well, there was a time when Oleg did discuss issues in this forum, and he was rewarded with endless whining and claims of bias. He might have thought "why bother"? I agree with you that I would like to hear the reasons for FM changes.

He is probably also tired of people who claim to know it all because they are real pilots, but, offer nothing other than baseless complaints. Who can blame him for avoiding that type of garbage? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>There are many here with meaningful civilian and/or military flight time (I'm but one of many). Our comments are based on what we've actually observed as aviators and how those realities differ (often significantly) from what we encounter in this game. If Maddox chooses to ignore it, that's certainly his right. However, it's clear that the flight/damage models are varying significantly from patch to patch and the trend doesn't seem to be improving (IMHO). So if you feel that the commentary offered by those with real experience flying real airplanes is trumped by the developer whose product yields widely varying flight models, that too is your right. However, it's completely unwarranted to call our remarks "garbage". Unless, of course, you too have credible real life credentials and can offer a point of view which merits attention.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-04-2006, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
See I disagree, Pipper

I don't think Oleg is required to explain anything, and I also don't think his silence is proof of anything at all. Nothing proves...nothing

What you seem to be saying is that since he isn't talking, something shady is going on, so why doesn't he explain himself?

That's not how it works. I'm not required to defend every word I say to the death, and neither is Oleg. Just ebcause I don't provide a defense or an answer sometimes is more an indicator that I don't care to explain, than I am wrong Actually, I don't think anything "shady" is going on. I just think that there are too many aircraft with too many unfinished flight models that compromise the quality of what Maddox is capable of doing. In addition, I'm at a loss as to why the developer refuses to simply provide an outline of what the changes are from patch to patch.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
04-04-2006, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Geez Pip, you have something to prove AND the means to prove it but you never took the step.
Where's the dual tracks made by you and your mate of 109 and P-51 showing what you say?
Your point is entirely provable as it was ONLY about what goes on in the sim!
But no-ooooo!
Your word alone is all that should be needed. Even though there is no measure of how much.
Screw everyone who says the 109 bleeds faster than the P-51 at least then and that slowed
down it can run a tighter radius turn at the same G's and will appear EXACTLY as you stated.

Oh wait. I see the error of mine and the others telling you that.
We tried to discuss and debate and you the expert know better, told us to stuff it.

Yep, I see your light. Unfortunately Max, you really don't see anything...and you like it that way.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see JACK from you backing anything up and FYI, I really don't care.
All it means is I one less tale teller I don't take seriously. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Max, you need to relax a little. It's a game we're talking about here. You're taking issue with people who have a lot more experience than you do and your posts are getting increasingly emotional. Have a lemonade.

GR142-Pipper

faustnik
04-04-2006, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:However, it's completely unwarranted to call our remarks "garbage". Unless, of course, you too have credible real life credentials and can offer a point of view which merits attention.


Oh no, there are many helpful pilots here who's opinion I value. A few however, seem to say "it's wrong because I say so" with no substance behind their claims. That's the garbage that I was referring to.

fordfan25
04-04-2006, 09:18 PM
soon as all you n00bs relize that im always right and your always wrong the sooner this forum will become a better place to be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

willyvic
04-05-2006, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
soon as all you n00bs relize that im always right and your always wrong the sooner this forum will become a better place to be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ah, FF25 is always right.

Wait a minute! If I believe he is always right, and if he is always right and I am always wrong, then he must be always wrong. Right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

WV

GR142-Pipper
04-05-2006, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:However, it's completely unwarranted to call our remarks "garbage". Unless, of course, you too have credible real life credentials and can offer a point of view which merits attention.


Oh no, there are many helpful pilots here who's opinion I value. A few however, seem to say "it's wrong because I say so" with no substance behind their claims. That's the garbage that I was referring to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So allow me to ask, how do you know what's being said is garbage or not? What do you bring to the table in terms of experience which enables you to determine the substance behind ANY claim? I'm not picking on you personally as this is designed to be a rhetorical question to the forum. For anyone to make a worthwhile judgement of merit there has to exist a level of knowledge sufficient for a meaningful judgement to take place.

Many here call for "testing" before making any claim for or against a particular discussion point. It's really amazing that this is asked for given the very wide fluctuations in the aircraft flight model characteristics FROM THE DEVELOPERS THEMSELVES from patch to patch.

Given this, in-game flight model "testing" at the customer level (that's us) is pretty much a complete waste of time and has been for quite a while. There is just no stability in the respective aircraft characteristics for this to be meaningful.

However, what's left is the ample amount of anectodal information in the form of actual combat pilot accounts of how their aircraft performed in the real environment of aerial combat versus their respective adversaries. These anecdotes should be viewed collectively for trends and their sample sizes are certainly sufficient to at least construct RELATIVE differences between one aircraft and another. Plus or minus 10% accuracy in flight characteristic modeling is a HUGE discrepancy. It's so big that it's really nothing more than guesswork and this easily explains the patch to patch swings that we all have seen since 4.0. So when someone says something's correct or incorrect, reserve judgement. See how the aircraft perform against their adversaries and see how this stacks up against the information available. If 109G-2's are nearly turning with Yaks and Zeros are diving with Corsairs, something's amiss.

Anyway, at the end of the day, Zen's and Stigler's remarks sufficiently and accurately describe the discussion environment here. Too bad too because it didn't have to be that way.

GR142-Pipper

WWMaxGunz
04-05-2006, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:

That was brilliant. You slipped in an anti-Spitfire diatribe by ...............

HUH? I dunno where you get that but I would like to know how.

I did put that warning in and you really should have stopped right there.

WWMaxGunz
04-05-2006, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, I don't think anything "shady" is going on. I just think that there are too many aircraft with too many unfinished flight models that compromise the quality of what Maddox is capable of doing. In addition, I'm at a loss as to why the developer refuses to simply provide an outline of what the changes are from patch to patch.

GR142-Pipper

I can agree with that but with one reservation. There isn't enough time to do all that and
get the patches out before customers go ballistic and that I believe (from experience) is why
we get what you see.

It's like chewing a mouthful too big to swallow before needing to breathe. I see Oleg's
resume as aeronautics engineer and pilot but nowhere as experienced large model programmer.

When by experience nearly 20 years I know that even the best coders still cannot predict
how long a project takes even after the 3x rule (I've gone 4x and seen it blown.) due to
'unforseen changes' (ie, customer demands), I am not surprised at all by the patches.

In fact the only surprise I have is the continuation of them and the progress made!
That is one very GOOD surprise that no way I'm gonna b!tch about! I appreciate it too much.

Please Pipper, look back over flight sim history and see if I am making sense rather than
the yardstick of real flight. Realism in sims is far less than 90%. To me, less than 50%.
That leaves a lot of room to be far different one patch to another and still overall an
incrementally improving sim. Think not of a linear path but of a wide field where a move
left or right means nothing the goal ahead of more realism.

faustnik
04-05-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
So allow me to ask, how do you know what's being said is garbage or not? What do you bring to the table in terms of experience which enables you to determine the substance behind ANY claim?

That's a easy question to answer. If people complain here with no reason behind it other than "because I say so", their opinions have no value. All they are trying to do is stroke their own bruised ego because their favorite plane isn't as all-powerful as they want it to be. That type of poster brings nothing of value to discussions on the forum.

There are a some real life pilots who have helped me with a lot of questions, and they always have great explainations for their opinions. I really appreciate them taking the time to answer those questions. Some of them have even flown the actual planes in the sim, such as the P-51! The frequent comment that I hear from them is that the situations the planes are placed in within the sim are unrealistic, not the modeling of the planes themselves.

I don't claim any personal authority on the subject. All I can do is ask questions citing historical sources and comparing them to actual tests done in the sim. I have no experience flying WWII aircraft in combat, so, how could I possibly make claims based on my own experience? Any information I have is purely second or third hand.

fordfan25
04-05-2006, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by willyvic:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
soon as all you n00bs relize that im always right and your always wrong the sooner this forum will become a better place to be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ah, FF25 is always right.

Wait a minute! If I believe he is always right, and if he is always right and I am always wrong, then he must be always wrong. Right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

WV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no. you is wrong be sure lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

blindpugh
04-05-2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
It's difficult to learn anything here really because of a few specific individuals who have decided that they (and apparently only they) are the final judge on what is a permissible FM debate vs what is merely a whine. Over the years they seem to have pretty much wrecked the forum for any kind of honest debate and now I feel most people with something to say won't bother because at some point they will be challenged and argued down by silly rhetoric and the endless demand for tracks and charts. From what I gather, no one can make a test method that is acceptable to this group, there is always some reason why the tester's methods are flawed and therefore the results are discounted. Anyone attempting to use history is likewise attacked to the point of nauseum. I've seen virtually every chart and test discounted at one time or another, every test has similarly been rhetorically shutdown as well.

Some of them appear to believe that 1C is always right and no one has the authority to challenge the FM (despite the obvious fluctuations patch to patch), some of them argue just for the sake of arguing and some like to make everything a personal challenge. 1C's credentials and unpublished data are used to discredit anyone making an assertion because how could we, simple forum members, actually have a better understanding of history than the game designer? Add them all up and it can become quite a chore to question even simple points about the FM in the sim, let alone whether there may actually be a serious flaw. Since none of us flew any of these planes in the war, we also cannot possibly be qualified to debate what it was like and simply reading a history book, or two, or ten is insufficient, because we don't know

What I find mildly amusing is that if you watch them long enough you will see they actually have no position on what is correct and what is not, they really only argue to come out on top, to be the loudest and appear to be the most authoritive. All I can gather is that for them, nothing is true. Historians cannot be trusted, pilot accounts cannot be trusted, charts cannot be trusted, war tests cannot be trusted and our own reasonable opinions cannot be trusted.

The forums used to be very educational, but many of the people who actually knew alot have migrated to other forums where the invective is not so harsh. True, back then there was plenty of baseless whining, but there was also a gold mine of great history being debated. Now it's been reduced to a very lame set of cheap debate tactics and a firm belief that no one is right because nothing can be proved conclusively, so whatever 1C gives us must be correct because they know.

The funny thing about history is that it really is subjective, you have to take any given comment with a grain of salt because we really don't know for sure. And you must be careful about context, because perspective is very important to the historical claims made. I certainly don't read one pilot account and think to myself, hey, the FW190 was the second fastest diving plane of the war because a German ace said so. But I do give it more credence when Johnson says the same thing, other Allied and German pilots agree and perhaps I read an account of a side by comparison flight. I wouldn't say it's conclusively proven, but I would easily say it's probable and generally feel comfortable it's an assumption I can work with because it gives me a framework to evaluate things. From there I could feel confident to come to the forum and debate my opinion based on that framework, during which perhaps I might learn something. And thats my point about history...you need to look at the whole to get an idea of what is most likely, then evaluate specifics within that context, because without context all the pilot accounts, charts etc etc really are meaningless. Each of us must decide what that context is ofcourse and that is exactly what makes historical debate so interesting, like the forums were long ago.

Unfortunately it seems that for some in these forums, probably means probably not, because it's not proven 100%. And when probably means probably not, there is no common framework to judge things and that inevitably means anything (and often everything) can be and almost certainly is discounted. Without a common framework to start with, there really is no point in debate because it always comes down to 'can you prove it' and WW2 aircraft performance is rarely able to be simplified to a yes or no value.

Whats interesting to me is that there are many things in the sim which don't jive with history...but any attempt to quantify why is met with the tired demand for absolute proof, as though they know and the poster doesn't. God forbid if you come in here without all your facts straight, but amusingly enough, as far as I can tell having your facts in order doesn't matter either because those facts are inevitably subjective and therefore easily discounted.

But the fact is that in WW2, there were numerous people who fought in the conflict and made their comments, planes were designed and engineered, performance documented and combat showed the relative merits of each. Many historians have gone back to research the mass of data and publish their conclusions and opinions, while we as a community like to read these opinions and consider for ourselves whether it's likely any given subject really was this or that way. But when we come now to the forum, probably is simply not acceptable, historical accounts are discarded, specific performance charts are not to be trusted, entire captured aircraft tests thrown out, historians disgregarded...and so the common framework of debate has been eliminated by years of steady rhetoric and demands for proof in a subject which is imho largely unprovable, at least the degree that is often demanded. Effectively, by continously discounting each specific example, ALL of it is discounted, which seems rather pointless to me.



Not surprising that things have dumbed down the way they have. What a marvellous post-I agree in all its entirety-you are absolutely correct-

blindpugh
04-05-2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Am I one of those people? DO you guys dislike me or like me? Just curious I want to see where I stand. ok first . your going to have to ask your self "how do i feel about full frountle male nudity" ......................*movie "waiting"* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>would that be full frontal nudity I wonder

ploughman
04-05-2006, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ploughman:

That was brilliant. You slipped in an anti-Spitfire diatribe by ...............

HUH? I dunno where you get that but I would like to know how.

I did put that warning in and you really should have stopped right there. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would've done but I have limited reading and comprehension skills which meant I didn't understand what you meant by limited reading and comprehension skills.

This thread's just bubbling along now.

GR142-Pipper
04-05-2006, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
Actually, I don't think anything "shady" is going on. I just think that there are too many aircraft with too many unfinished flight models that compromise the quality of what Maddox is capable of doing. In addition, I'm at a loss as to why the developer refuses to simply provide an outline of what the changes are from patch to patch.

GR142-Pipper


I can agree with that but with one reservation. There isn't enough time to do all that and get the patches out before customers go ballistic and that I believe (from experience) is why we get what you see.

It's like chewing a mouthful too big to swallow before needing to breathe. I see Oleg's
resume as aeronautics engineer and pilot but nowhere as experienced large model programmer.

When by experience nearly 20 years I know that even the best coders still cannot predict
how long a project takes even after the 3x rule (I've gone 4x and seen it blown.) due to
'unforseen changes' (ie, customer demands), I am not surprised at all by the patches. You have a point and this is the single biggest reason why I'm an advocate for far less aircraft than we have now. For reasons that I can only attribute to marketing pressure, Maddox has chosen to not only expand the availability of many aircraft types when the necessary data to create accurate flight models of the respective planes isn't readily available but he has ALSO decided to add additional complex aircraft flight CHARACTERISTICS (to wit: engine torque, etc.) making the scale of the modeling task that much bigger and much more difficult. In essence, he's expanding the modeling size in two directions at once without the data necessary to adequately complete the modeling job in even the smaller, less complex modeling environment (pre 4.02). Absent Ubisoft marketing pressures, I absolutely do not understand his reasoning because it has greatly compromised the accuracy of the flight/damage modeling effort (to wit: the hugely changing 4.x patches).

You seem to feel that progress is being made. I feel just the opposite. The graphics are certainly better in the 4.x releases but the results of the modeling itself (gameplay, if you will) is actually weaker. At the end of the day, it's the quality of the modeling that will keep this game interesting...not the amount of aircraft, ships, etc. I think this is one reason why the engine torque effects were to large extent removed in the 4.03/4.04 releases. It became obvious that the scale of the modeling simply became too big.

When it comes to this type of modeling, I'm definitely a quality over quantity advocate. I'd be just as happy to have only the Eastern Front or only the Western Front represented and have the aircraft really modeled well. Less is more and all that.

In summary, Maddox has the ability to really produce a quality product and he needs to do just that. It's no good to have a fiasco like PF was/is for the very reasons that I've outlined. Expansion is fine but in a VERY measured way so as to not compromise quality and in so doing the long term health of his company. Even under the best of circumstances we're a very niche market. Limit the scope of the modeling effort, do the job right and no more free upgrades. This community will pay for quality work.

...one man's view.

GR142-Pipper

msalama
04-06-2006, 12:26 AM
...one man's view.

No, you're right. Quality over quantity every time IMHO too, and the way things are now 1C:MG might've bitten more they can chew...

But personally I'm not too pished off, because I'm a Sturmo pilot first and foremost, and I've always felt that the Stormbird is pretty well modelled in this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif FWIW the torque is still quite strong (meaning realistic perhaps?), and engine settings of 90-95 mmHg / 1450-1500RPM result in cruise speed of 250-270 KMPHIAS, which is pretty much correct AFAIK...

WWMaxGunz
04-06-2006, 10:04 AM
Really Oleg feels the same about quality and quantity. Here is why I think so:

How long ago was BoB announced and before that about how next sim will have few planes
with much more detail? I think it was 2002, perhaps 2003?

IL2 was IIRC 4 years from start to initial release at end of 2001. FB took another year
just for the step up to that. By then there were many models started and more taken up
that we have still not gotten. Figure there was something close to promises made and being
kept, they also keep busy and paid people who are not full time new engine design team,
except I think one or two who are those do part time on FB patches.

4.x is not only a major change in FM but a testbed hybrid of BoB modelling with the inertia
differences. Except without the BoB 3D models with full weight distribution. I have no
idea how they are doing it, where the data is stored or if it is generic by formula and no
way I'd make any claim as to what is happening on an eyes and feel basis. No claim, I can
only guess.

I think progress because I keep trying an extreme stunt or three and find I can't cut it
as hard or slow as I could. For instance, how slowly can you fly an La-5FN in a 45 degree
bank turn? In 4.0 I was able to climb with an even steeper bank down to, IIRC 120kph, and
keep it going till I got bored at over 7km alt. So I made a .trk track and sent it in.
The full tracks have condition data that ntrks do not, I was informed long before when I
had sent in on P-40E dive and explode. Oleg wants full tracks.

I ain't been thrilled with the lowspeed climbs since FB 1.0. Even IL2 1.2 was a small step
in that direction. IMO it's been a response to massive 190 bleed protests back from since
1.04 in the summer of 2002. Prior to the change we had what I feel was a more free feeling
in dives and swoops (and not since do I feel the word swoop fits), less acceleration where
it took more time to build speed, and the 190's had to be turned carefully because up to a
limit they were good then just past that hard to feel edge (beginning of stall region or
just slightly past) they would bleed as I'd expect a heavy high wingloaded plane to do under
Gee in a turn. But they couldn't follow Yaks or even LaGGs (generally moving slower) so
there was a mass of whines backed up with such solid data as the quote about how the 190's\
stayed and fought over the channel when 109's did not and 2 or 3 others lacking the what's
and hows equally. So... we got 190's able to turn better as lift (that always comes with
drag) as well.

Tell ya what. Load FB 1.0 and try the lowspeed climbs. Helicopter Hurris? I'm not sure
right now but IIRC it is even worse than PF merged 3.0. Or 4.0 or 4.04. So I call that
progress.

All I've been able to do for a while now is try something and if I don't think it is right,
I ask "is this right". I've found out that I don't always know as in the case of full power
stall speeds.

Lion_13
04-06-2006, 11:59 AM
'dljaksl;djvmoa;si vnmnv;l voijsdoi'f

OUCH!!!!! My face just hit the keyboard.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Old_Canuck
04-06-2006, 12:44 PM
Anyone else miss those trolls from a couple of years ago?

fordfan25
04-07-2006, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Am I one of those people? DO you guys dislike me or like me? Just curious I want to see where I stand. ok first . your going to have to ask your self "how do i feel about full frountle male nudity" ......................*movie "waiting"* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>would that be full frontal nudity I wonder </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OMG what a n00b. dont you know that "frountle" is the new way to spell it. all the cool kidds are doing it now. OOooooo but your not one of us http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Megile_
04-07-2006, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blindpugh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
Am I one of those people? DO you guys dislike me or like me? Just curious I want to see where I stand. ok first . your going to have to ask your self "how do i feel about full frountle male nudity" ......................*movie "waiting"* </div></BLOCKQUOTE>would that be full frontal nudity I wonder </div></BLOCKQUOTE>OMG what a n00b. dont you know that "frountle" is the new way to spell it. all the cool kidds are doing it now. OOooooo but your not one of us http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

fordfan settle down before I slap you silly.