PDA

View Full Version : Will you make next patch realistic



LeadSpitter_
08-05-2005, 01:24 AM
sry to say but this has to be most arcadish patch since stumovik the original, my major concerns are will you be adding realistic trim back in and add in elevator compressibility on all aircraft elevators. Look into unrecoverable dive from compressibility this happens much earlier then structural failure and no aircraft in game should be exempt from this.

Please don't listen to these civilian pilots who have hours in civilian ac or even some of the aerobatics pilots. They really can not help you out.

you got to admit it oleg and hope it gets worked on.

http://www.d a m n e d.org/ge.html

No spaces because ubi filters

LeadSpitter_
08-05-2005, 01:24 AM
sry to say but this has to be most arcadish patch since stumovik the original, my major concerns are will you be adding realistic trim back in and add in elevator compressibility on all aircraft elevators. Look into unrecoverable dive from compressibility this happens much earlier then structural failure and no aircraft in game should be exempt from this.

Please don't listen to these civilian pilots who have hours in civilian ac or even some of the aerobatics pilots. They really can not help you out.

you got to admit it oleg and hope it gets worked on.

http://www.d a m n e d.org/ge.html

No spaces because ubi filters

FritzGryphon
08-05-2005, 01:29 AM
Wow. Your tone is so childish and demanding, I'm almost ashamed to say I agree with you on the trim thing.

I'm sure Oleg will see the light and fix compressability to your whims. Jeez, what's he been doing all this time, putzing around?

LeadSpitter_
08-05-2005, 01:34 AM
Fritz its text and Im being respectful to oleg saying please. I'm also demanding nothing oleg has given us so many aircraft for the money, Thats why I say I hope. I think he realizes it and knows we all enjoy this game for many years.

Now please do not start a spam fest here fritz so the thread will get locked. You already have insulted me calling me childish and demanding which is against the forum terms of use, and none of which I have done.

You should watch the inboard clips and comment on those rather then insults which I really do not appreciate.

FritzGryphon
08-05-2005, 01:39 AM
Hm you're right. I should resepect your post. Who knows, it might yet become constructive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But do tell, what has Oleg been doing all this time? Why, you seem to think it's all wrong, and with them trying to get it right for all this time.

LeadSpitter_
08-05-2005, 02:04 AM
I really do not know fritz, It seems they add in new code as a testbed for bob like the new torque effect which is great but needs to be much stronger.

Im sure the pressure of the ubi deadlines also make them rush fast and miss alot of things for final.

To me I think the most important things that have to be worked on in this game keep getting overlooked.

Damage Models

Dive accelaration & Energy bleed

Roll Rates

Intertia

Full Elevator Compressibility, trim used for easing stick pressure

Degrees of rudder deflection and rudder induced stalls

Overheat Timings and working temp gauges

Stalls being a severe penalty loss of all energy taking 1000-3000m recovery time.

These thing to me are more important then an ac being off 5-10 kmph at a specific altitude.

Also I think ubi should release a Platinum Editon of the game Including FB AEP PF all on one dvd drive for $39-$49. I really think it would bring more money in for 1c being able to buy everything once and make it worth fixing some of these issues in game for the devs.

We also need more people in the community.

For 4.01 we got so many things great ai, weather clouds, maps, so many new ground items, aircraft, a start to more complex fm calculations alot of work was was definatly done on 4.01 and we all see and notice it.

joeap
08-05-2005, 04:32 AM
Umm Leadspitter, again can I ask you did Bud really say what you wrote in the sig?? Where did he say that or are you "extrapolating"?

SeaFireLIV
08-05-2005, 05:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:


Please don't listen to these civilian pilots who have hours in civilian ac or even some of the aerobatics pilots. They really can not help you out.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has to be one of the most arrogant suggestions in a long while... `Don`t listen to them, Oleg, listen to me who knows best!`

How can anyone talk like this and not see how self-serving it is?

NonWonderDog
08-05-2005, 05:54 AM
Alright LS, got a scanner? Show us your certs!

Otherwise, don't make any arguments based upon others' lack of qualification. In fact, just don't make arguments based upon others' lack of qualification at all. It's poor form.

VVS-Manuc
08-05-2005, 08:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

Please don't listen to these civilian pilots who have hours in civilian ac or even some of the aerobatics pilots. They really can not help you out.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As you wish, Master and Guardian of realism ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Jg300_Kostek
08-05-2005, 10:09 AM
Well i think that Oleg should listen do all real pilots, but he is not (i think all of those 40 pilots that Oleg use to ask for testing live only in his imagination).

faustnik
08-05-2005, 10:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Please don't listen to these civilian pilots who have hours in civilian ac or even some of the aerobatics pilots. They really can not help you out.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't tell if Leadspitter is serious or not with this one, but, either way it's pretty funny. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
08-05-2005, 10:27 AM
Well, I'd say that's an oversimplification, but there is a little truth in it.

Why would the opinion of a pilot whose plane can't do basic aerobatics matter? He might be qualified to speak on some aspects of flight, but certainly not combat aerodynamics, let alone combat speeds.

It's like somebody with a standard passenger auto license "having an opinion" on driving an 18-wheeler based on his experience driving a Honda Civic.

faustnik
08-05-2005, 10:33 AM
<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:
Why would the opinion of a pilot whose plane can't do basic aerobatics matter? He might be qualified to speak on some aspects of flight, but certainly not combat aerodynamics, let alone combat speeds.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a lot of assumption on your part Stig. For instance, Oleg talked to civilian P-51 pilots. Do you really think P-51 owners have never flown their a/c at high speeds or performed aerobatic maneuvers?

p1ngu666
08-05-2005, 10:40 AM
p51s and spits at duxford went fairly quick, no idea how fast, however

Stigler_9_JG52
08-05-2005, 12:56 PM
Faustnik, I mean civilian aircraft pilots, as in, say, Cessna guys. Of course, someone flying a vintage P-51 would have some valid iput to share... and of course, you'd also have to factor in new weights, because he's not lugging around guns and very heavy radio equipment....

I was merely talking about general aviation (only) pilots who have never flown WWII era planes. Read that comment again: "...that can't do basic aerobatics" doesn't apply to a P-51 owner, now, does it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

faustnik
08-05-2005, 01:04 PM
Oh, OK, got it Stig. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Jetbuff
08-05-2005, 01:37 PM
Oleg, can we please have an anti-whiner patch? Key feature: it tracks the Ubi forum and blows up your PC if it detects you whining. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

|CoB|_Spectre
08-05-2005, 02:36 PM
<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:
I was merely talking about general aviation (only) pilots who have never flown WWII era planes. Read that comment again: "...that can't do basic aerobatics" doesn't apply to a P-51 owner, now, does it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just out of curiosity, Stigler, on what do you base your flight experience? Your warbird experience?

|CoB|_Spectre
08-05-2005, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Oleg, can we please have an anti-whiner patch? Key feature: it tracks the Ubi forum and blows up your PC if it detects you whining. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just so long as it can tell the difference between "my x-plane doesn't do what I expect" from "the 109K4's rudder does not work". Can you tell the difference?

crazyivan1970
08-05-2005, 03:22 PM
What is this?

GR142_Astro
08-05-2005, 03:49 PM
Ahh, here comes the flood of luft players to keep status quo.

My God.

I know of one or two pilots that laugh at Oleg's attempt at modeling stalls. One even knows a thing or two about high-speed handling of a P51.

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

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/North-American-P51-Racers/info/missamerica.jpg

BSS_Vidar
08-05-2005, 05:05 PM
Well kewel! I get to share my personal experience! I got 2.1 hours in a P-51 in the spring of 2004. Took it out over the Atlantic and really ran it through its paces with the owner up front, and me flying it from the added backseat cockpit. Other than pushing forward making houses bigger, and pulling back to make'em smaller. It's nothing like the charcteristics in this game. It's faster, snappier, holds it speed well, and as stable as a mountain to fly.

What's funny about my experience with this gentleman is he plays country music to this fully authentic restoration of a P-51D-N20 in its hanger 24/7! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif He has a Cessna Citation and an authentic WWII Jeep completley refurbished, housed in the hanger with it.

If I had his money, and he had a feather up his rear, we'ld both be tickeled. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
08-05-2005, 08:13 PM
Spectre,

On flight experience, I'm extremely sketchy. About an hour in a T-6 trainer I'm afraid.

As for WWII planes in general, I use a trick not many use.... I actually crack a book or two and read a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Daiichidoku
08-05-2005, 08:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also I think ubi should release a Platinum Editon of the game Including FB AEP PF all on one dvd drive for $39-$49. I really think it would bring more money in for 1c being able to buy everything once and make it worth fixing some of these issues in game for the devs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif would love to have only
one disc to deal with

be nice to have it released with as a "final" version, addressing most issues possible
known already

id buy it...gauranteed sale if i knew, or even thought, that there WOULD be a time, maybe after BoB finished and released, when FB would be open coded, allowing more planes, more everything...

would be ncie to have FB top notch, and still expanding by the community, and still enjoy the vast number of planes, etc, and still have BoB, wonderful as it sounds, but it needs a backup for when one tires of nuttin but spits n nines


nes't pas?

NorrisMcWhirter
08-06-2005, 08:01 AM
Yes, please make it more realistic to reflect what the history channel puts out.

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

Ta,
Norris

9th_Spitin
08-06-2005, 08:26 AM
I don't think Oleg talked to any P-47 vets. Read just a few of the pilot stories from real WW2 47 pilots at this site... P-47 pilots Assoc (http://www.p47pilots.com/index.cfm) Nothing like the FM and DM we have. So, with the FM's like they are, does it make this a arcade game instead of a sim. What's next, X-box edition?

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-06-2005, 10:58 AM
Have no fear...next patch RED will think its the most accurate FM we have had and BLUE will think its arcade. It is how it has always been and most likely always will be. Almost all blue pilots think we have a great and realistic FM now. And red finds its arcade. This was the opposite not too long ago. And will change again in the next patch would be my guess.

JG5_UnKle
08-06-2005, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Have no fear...next patch RED will think its the most accurate FM we have had and BLUE will think its arcade. It is how it has always been and most likely always will be. Almost all blue pilots think we have a great and realistic FM now. And red finds its arcade. This was the opposite not too long ago. And will change again in the next patch would be my guess. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Almost all blue pilots....

Not this one though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Some of us have been pushing for more realism since day 1. v 4.01m was a step in the right direction adding some more flight effect modules etc.

But the 'unmentionable' beta was the shizznet, and funny that it got toned down for the masses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Maybe the il-2 community (loose term) isn't ready for this sort of reaslism, and if the whining on this forum is anything to go by then 1C are probably right.

PC limitations pffft! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Badsight.
08-06-2005, 05:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:
But the 'unmentionable' beta was the shizznet, and funny that it got toned down for the masses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>oh how i agree

FM wise

BigganD
08-06-2005, 08:13 PM
Beta 04 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

fordfan25
08-07-2005, 12:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
I really do not know fritz, It seems they add in new code as a testbed for bob like the new torque effect which is great but needs to be much stronger.

Im sure the pressure of the ubi deadlines also make them rush fast and miss alot of things for final.

To me I think the most important things that have to be worked on in this game keep getting overlooked.

Damage Models

Dive accelaration & Energy bleed

Roll Rates

Intertia

Full Elevator Compressibility, trim used for easing stick pressure

Degrees of rudder deflection and rudder induced stalls

Overheat Timings and working temp gauges

Stalls being a severe penalty loss of all energy taking 1000-3000m recovery time.

These thing to me are more important then an ac being off 5-10 kmph at a specific altitude.

Also I think ubi should release a Platinum Editon of the game Including FB AEP PF all on one dvd drive for $39-$49. I really think it would bring more money in for 1c being able to buy everything once and make it worth fixing some of these issues in game for the devs.

We also need more people in the community.

For 4.01 we got so many things great ai, weather clouds, maps, so many new ground items, aircraft, a start to more complex fm calculations alot of work was was definatly done on 4.01 and we all see and notice it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agreed on all acounts.

fordfan25
08-07-2005, 12:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Yes, please make it more realistic to reflect what the history channel puts out.

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

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or better yet do it the way the history revisionist say it should be

FA_Whisky
08-07-2005, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well kewel! I get to share my personal experience! I got 2.1 hours in a P-51 in the spring of 2004. Took it out over the Atlantic and really ran it through its paces with the owner up front, and me flying it from the added backseat cockpit. Other than pushing forward making houses bigger, and pulling back to make'em smaller. It's nothing like the charcteristics in this game. It's faster, snappier, holds it speed well, and as stable as a mountain to fly.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Man!!! I'm jalous!! Want that too!!! Can you tell more about how it flies?
Look here too:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6691091443

msalama
08-07-2005, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and me flying it from the added backseat cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you tried a modified Mustang out, and now base your statements on that single experience?

I'm sorry, but opinions like that are hardly relevant in searching of historical accuracy.

Tvrdi
08-07-2005, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG5_UnKle:

But the 'unmentionable' beta was the shizznet, and funny that it got toned down for the masses http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Maybe the il-2 community (loose term) isn't ready for this sort of reaslism, and if the whining on this forum is anything to go by then 1C are probably right.

PC limitations pffft! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


mate, you got the point...the funny thing is that 80% of ppl here didnt recognized the difference....that betapatch was closer to the real thing (although, half of them never tried betapatch)...like i said 100 times before I understand why Oleg changed the patch before the final release...just like you said above - how many ppl would cry then "oh I cant fly...wtf is this...its not right..etc."...pitty..i just have that feeling that we will see the da*n betapacth again in advanced version in the BoB... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VF17_CRH
08-07-2005, 12:14 PM
Look at the game like this and you will understand!
Flight sims are great fun, but they tend to view an aircraft in a micro
world, where you get to set up certain comfort zones to replace 6 months
to a year of training in the real thing and you also get to set up such
things as unlimited ammo, the ability of your opposition and the like,
obviously, you don't want to participate in several hours of boring
flying and then a 1-2 minute engagement on a sim when in real life 2
minutes or less of sheer terror is more than enough. A lot of
characteristics of flying are in the Sim, which is really cool, but it
ain't real.

VFS-214_Hawk
08-07-2005, 12:57 PM
Ok, here we go:

The guys that designed these (WWII) planes didnt know what they were doing...got all the figures wrong from what the test pilots say anyway. The fighter pilots lie so they can not be trusted. The authers of modern books get thier incorrect information from the incorrect data from the liing designers and test pilots as well as the fighter pilots that tend to ssttrreecccttch the truth. Now you have the moderbn day millionair that is flying a "gutted" out plane that will now exxaaggeeerrate the numbers yet again, "confirming" that the previous mentioned are all liers.

Did I tell ya that the world is flat?


heheheh funny thread though!!

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

Platypus_1.JaVA
08-07-2005, 01:29 PM
Leadspitter on a fishing trip?

MEGILE
08-07-2005, 04:13 PM
Beta 4 was too hard for the average player.

Oleg is in business to make money, no?

Not surprising it was toned down. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SeaFireLIV
08-07-2005, 07:41 PM
If LS wasn`t thinking so hard about himself, he`d realise that 4.01 was NOT the complete FM, but is much closer to the real thing. Oleg has made this abundantly clear - it`s in the Readme!

As Megile has stated, there has to be a gradual change to reaching maximum realism. Why?

1, Because of the extra processing power required to gain such a high level of authenticity comparable to real-life flight dynamics.

2, I would say just programming such parameters in a commercial flight-sim is quite an indepth task even for a qualified chap like Oleg. It takes time, testing and thought. It`s foolish to think that he`s not committed to continuous work on the FMs and the ultimate improvement eventually.

3, Not to completely alienate new, even serious virtual pilots. We`ve already seen some of the `I can`t handle it complaints` of some veteran players who are still in shock from the reality hit.

I know if I had started IL2 with the FMs as they are now in 4.01 I probably would have given up flight simming.

LS is probably fishing, as he`s been constantly dripping since 4.01 has been released. He knows Oleg will keep working on improving the FMS. For him a new Patch is not really the issue, reality isn`t the issue - what he`s really afraid of is the FMs won`t be according to what he WANTS it to be.

I`ve seenthis `do it my way because i`m always right` routine before. The audacity tires me.

BSS_Vidar
08-08-2005, 12:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and me flying it from the added backseat cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you tried a modified Mustang out, and now base your statements on that single experience?

I'm sorry, but opinions like that are hardly relevant in searching of historical accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a completly accurate restoration of this particular aircraft. Other than a few modern Nav Aides and the extra controls in the back, this plane performs exactly as it should... Like a P-51D-N20 from 1944. The change in the Center-of-Gravity is miniscule; therefore, has no bearing in any change of performance characteristics from it's original configuration.

Also, I base my 2,500+ hours of flight experience, Top Gun grad Sept 1988, Test and Eval at Pax River, Md, and 526 arrested landings on 7 different aircraft carriers to back up my observations of this awesome opportunity. Plus those of the aircraft's owner.

crazyivan1970
08-08-2005, 04:28 AM
Keep going at it, you might as well get 304m FM back, that would be a hoot wouldn`t it?

hotspace
08-08-2005, 04:34 AM
Will take come with free Cocktail Bar & Hostess http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hot Space

DGC763
08-08-2005, 05:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and me flying it from the added backseat cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you tried a modified Mustang out, and now base your statements on that single experience?

I'm sorry, but opinions like that are hardly relevant in searching of historical accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a completly accurate restoration of this particular aircraft. Other than a few modern Nav Aides and the extra controls in the back, this plane performs exactly as it should... Like a P-51D-N20 from 1944. The change in the Center-of-Gravity is miniscule; therefore, has no bearing in any change of performance characteristics from it's original configuration.

Also, I base my 2,500+ hours of flight experience, Top Gun grad Sept 1988, Test and Eval at Pax River, Md, and 526 arrested landings on 7 different aircraft carriers to back up my observations of this awesome opportunity. Plus those of the aircraft's owner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't worry about it Vidar you have probably forgotten more about aviation than these self proclaimed "experts" (I use that term loosely) will ever know.

This FM is not without certain problems, but it is much improved and still a work in progress. It is streets ahead of other flight sims, I think some people forget this sometimes, it is a sim. Nothing can replicate the feeling of being in a airplane not matter how they try.

AerialTarget
08-08-2005, 06:22 AM
Lock On: Modern Air Combat is still quite a ways ahead of this game in terms of realism and fidelity to specifications.

msalama
08-08-2005, 09:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a completly accurate restoration of this particular aircraft. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...with an _added_ cockpit with its own dome not affecting its flying characteristics at ALL? How strange indeed.

Or did I misunderstand something?

But anyway, as regards the instability of some AC in the game: I just changed my joystick to yet another model, and guess what? That KILLED _all_ AC instabilities COMPLETELY, including Mustangs and whatnot. So my advice would be to re-check your input equipment (and their configuration) before digging even deeper into the FM abyss, because hey, it just might work for you too...

(and this is NOT me claiming that the P-51 is 100% there, now)

BSS_Vidar
08-08-2005, 11:44 AM
There is no extra dome on this P-51. To the un-trained eye, you can't tell the difference; however, there is a modified canopy on Sizzelin' Liz. It doesn't taper down aft as much as the original bubble. It's still a single bubble-top, but the back end is raised about 6" before it comes down into the canopy rail frame. There was just enough room for my big brain-bucket to move around comfortably. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

As for my joystick settings. After 4.01 came out, I pulled my hair out adjusting both game settings and my CH Products settings. The stability issues isn't in the flight controls themselves, it's the static instability resulting in a bounce/oscilation AFTER rudder input - whether putting in, and/or taking it back out. It's actually the worst in the F-4U. I've actually come to ignoring it by flying through the oscilations. Time allows you to get use to it, but it still doesn't make it right.

BTW, AT, you're dead on about LOMAC. Especialy since the release of Flaming Cliffs! Nothing beats the flight characteristics of that sim. The ground handeling is arcade-like, but we fly more than we taxi around on hugh airfields, so I overlook that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

msalama
08-08-2005, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is no extra dome on this P-51. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK Vidar, that explains it a bit more. Must be crowded in there, though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But as for the AC "bounciness": I flew a couple of planes in QMB just now, and my perception is that the differences in axial instability are actually quite small. Yep, a F-4U might bounce around a bit more than, say, a Yak-3, but honestly it's not _that_ much worse. And they _all_ oscillate a bit when you f.e. apply full rudder and then release it abruptly!

But FWIW, an IL-2S-3 oscillates at least as badly as a P-51D, and so does a P-39N-1. But hey, aren't we all guinea pigs ANYWAY now, v.4.01 being the pre-BoB beta FM testbed and that?

BSS_Vidar
08-08-2005, 03:54 PM
Yeah, it was a bit crowded. I'm 6' 2" 260 lbs, but I still had enough room to move about, and even look over my shoulder. Shortly before I retired, I got to fly in a B-52. I was assigned to Barksdale, AFB Louisiana for a week to teach them how to rig ships, and review War-at-Sea tactics (WASEX). I had less room at my crew station in that tub than I did in the P-51. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LeadSpitter_
08-08-2005, 06:52 PM
Well im definatly not fishing here, what I say has been a problem since il2 demo of sturmovik till 4.01.

Im sure oleg realizes it, but just dont really know if 1c/ubi care to correct these issues. Or maybe ubi has final say in fm issues over 1c's team. The dev team has also been working on it so long and im sure he wants to move onto his "new engine" and are tired of changing everything each and every patch.

Out of all these patchs I dont know why 4.01 is a step backwards to sturmovik fms. But torque is a step forward. yes theres good things about 4.01 like implementing torque which needs to be much stronger, graphical enhancements to weather, but dms always been a problem in this series and not weapons strenght which seems like the thing changed each and every patch rather then dms,

I just dont really get why they remove all elevator compressibility and made the trim back to the way it was in sturmovik the original after 8+ patches.

I guess we can say the same for the decisions made with previous patches like 1.0s hurricane i153 109k4 2.0s la7 yak3 zero and ki84, 3.0s corsair and ki84 3.04s spitfire, 4.01s 109 dora and p38s and its supposably unquestionably realistic no offense but not even close.

Dont get me wrong nothing compairs to the sim low alt graphically at all since il2 sturm the original im definatly glad oleg decided to make the titles and so many aircraft.

full compressibility for all ac before breakup speed which can force ac into unrecoverable power dives.
Dive accelaration speeds
realistic trim, to ease stick force and compressibility not able to dogfight without elevator use and just trim alone.
max dive breakup speeds
stall characteristics and recovery
damage models
E bleeding
accelarations

In the b1 russian rocket shows us oleg can implement full elavator compressibility conditions the only way to recover is with forward stick pressure in those conditions.

the b1 automatically noses over but just shows us its possible for this game code.

Also ac of the past did like the p38 even tho at wrong they happened at low altitudes and not about 27,000 feet.

Now its no worries do 890kmph in a 109 p38 or dora in a dive slap the trim wheel pretty **** quick and you can recover from a straight down dive those speeds in less then 600 meters.

you do the same in other ac with slow elevator trim and will pop off wings at 560-650 p40s ki100 corsair for some examples.

Look at the 1000m turn fights now between the la5fn spit or yak vs dora 109k4 in a horizontal turn fight now

to me these issues I mentioned in the original post and below definatly need to be worked on and are crutial for a somewhat accurate simulation, and crutial for bob's engine which im sure will be similiar and based off this PF engine. but if you think they are all unquestionally accurate now thats your own choice but its definatly not mine.

GR142_Astro
08-08-2005, 08:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:

In the b1 russian rocket shows us oleg can implement full elavator compressibility conditions the only way to recover is with forward stick pressure in those conditions.

the b1 automatically noses over but just shows us its possible for this game code.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent point.

Now that you mention this, I've experienced the same in the B1 and it seems much like historical accounts of P38s flopping over into that death tuck.

A major problem for sure, is the return of the arcade elevator trim.

NonWonderDog
08-08-2005, 08:57 PM
Oh come on, what's so arcade about the elevator trim? It's been brought up over and over and over since the patch, and the consensus was that it works more or less correctly now. Yes, the delay has changed, but the delay only masked the real problem (that being trim giving an unrealisticly high boost to control authority at all speeds). As far as I can tell, the real problem has now been fixed (if it existed at all, I never checked before). The trim wheels might move a bit too fast, but that's about it. It *does* still take time to turn the trim wheels, whether you use a hat switch, the keyboard, or a slider -- and it's exactly the same speed no matter what method you use.

Compressibility effects are not really modelled, but those are so poorly understood here that demands for "full compressibility on all aircraft" will never be satisfactorily filled. Documentation on these effects on period planes is pretty much non-existant, too. Since the sim probably doesn't do much in the way of fluid dynamics at all -- much less compressible flow -- any effects due to the compressibility of air would have to be completely canned. In order to put the effects in, very detailed documentation would be necessary.

"Compressibility" is a horribly abused term in aviation, anyway. Saying that a plane "goes into compressibility" just makes no sense whatsoever. The term is even extended to include such things as the Zero's slow high speed roll, which is little more than fast airflow pressing on big ailerons.

So, in short, if you want compressibility effects you're going to have to be *real* specific. I certainly don't know what should happen with each plane when the air in front starts getting compressed, so I just don't worry about it.

msalama
08-08-2005, 09:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but if you think they are all unquestionally accurate now thats your own choice but its definatly not mine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

C'mon, no-one in their right mind would call these AC "unquestionally accurate", because they're not. Hey, it IS after all a pre-BoB beta FM we're talking about here...

knightflyte
08-08-2005, 11:52 PM
Dang, Lead. When's the last time you had a good thing to say about IL2/FB/PF. I know it's your opinion but man your getting REALLY REALLY annoying.

Give it a rest will ya?

Better yet just stop playing it. If you find that little to enjoy.... just stop.

Badsight.
08-09-2005, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigganD:
Beta 04 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>was rubbish

is it a lack of getting 06 that keeps people mentioning 04 ?

Hetzer_II
08-09-2005, 12:43 AM
Turnfight with a dora against yak,la,Spit?
Down-low?

OK, i take the yak...

MEGILE
08-09-2005, 04:32 AM
Mostly Agreed with LeadSpitter.

Especially with regards to Bat Trim and Super DMs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Compressibility for all or none aircraft please.

Dexmeister
08-09-2005, 11:04 AM
You guys think you have it bad? With my video card 4.01 forces me to fly in gunsight mode full time. How realistic is that? Sort of made this "sim" into a "pos" over here.

Luckily I listed it in the bug reporting thread, so now all I need to do is wait, pray, hope, ditch this sim, chase women and go fishing... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
08-09-2005, 11:20 AM
<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 NorrisMcWhirter:
Yes, please make it more realistic to reflect what the history channel puts out.

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

Ta,
Norris </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

or better yet do it the way the history revisionist say it should be </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, you agree that it should be like the history channel...

Top show.

I was going to say that the next patch may swing in red's favour but I seriously don't think that it favours blue now...apart from the slightly too tough 190.

Then again, some redwhiners will never be satisfied until someone with half an hour's stick time can wipe out a legion of axis aces.

Keep whining - you'll get your own way eventually...just like you did with the .50s

Norris

LEXX_Luthor
08-09-2005, 04:40 PM
NonWonderDog:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh come on, what's so arcade about the elevator trim? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Realistic fast response trim is required now with the new FM. Our old timer Online dogfight gamers now have to *fly* their 1944 dogfight planes instead of just dogfighting in the dogfighter servers, and they don't like it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Oleg's old FM spoiled the dogfight community.

NonWonderDog:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"Compressibility" is a horribly abused term in aviation, anyway. Saying that a plane "goes into compressibility" just makes no sense whatsoever. The term is even extended to include such things as the Zero's slow high speed roll, which is little more than fast airflow pressing on big ailerons. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know nothing of "compressibility," but then, Real flight simmers prefer slow, early WAR planes, where "compressibility" is not an Option. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2005, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
To me I think the most important things that have to be worked on in this game keep getting overlooked.

Damage Models
- Dive accelaration & Energy bleed
- Roll Rates
- Intertia
- Full Elevator Compressibility, trim used for easing stick pressure
- Degrees of rudder deflection and rudder induced stalls
- Overheat Timings and working temp gauges
- Stalls being a severe penalty loss of all energy taking 1000-3000m recovery time.

These thing to me are more important then an ac being off 5-10 kmph at a specific altitude.

Also I think ubi should release a Platinum Editon of the game Including FB AEP PF all on one dvd drive for $39-$49. I really think it would bring more money in for 1c being able to buy everything once and make it worth fixing some of these issues in game for the devs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What you're saying is that the damage AND flight models are off. I support your view. The damage and particularly the flight models are just drifting further and further from reality. The 109 now is just an all-turning, all-gunning, instant energy-changing, no-blackout farce...not even close to the real thing. What's really troubling is that this has consciously been done...it's definitely no accident. So, do I have confidence that BoB will be the "answer"? I'm afraid not.

I also concur with you in that if Oleg and company needs to charge for an upgrade in order to maintain a responsible business position, they should do so. But just get the flight and damage models right on the planes that presently exist. No more new features; no more new planes. Also important, no more new complexity when the basics are so far off.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2005, 01:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...and me flying it from the added backseat cockpit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you tried a modified Mustang out, and now base your statements on that single experience?

I'm sorry, but opinions like that are hardly relevant in searching of historical accuracy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Msalama, Vidar was also a flyer in the Navy. His views are worth listening to.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2005, 01:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BSS_Vidar:
Also, I base my 2,500+ hours of flight experience, Top Gun grad Sept 1988, Test and Eval at Pax River, Md, and 526 arrested landings on 7 different aircraft carriers to back up my observations of this awesome opportunity. Plus those of the aircraft's owner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Is that all? Christ, get some real "tickets" will you? (lol..just kidding)

GR142-Pipper

csThor
08-10-2005, 03:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
... not even close to the real thing ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which german Jagdgeschwader were you serving with in WW2? Or which restored 109 do you fly on a regular base? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't deny that there's something wrong with slat-equipped aircraft, but your claim ... or better the tiny snippet I posted makes your post smell very fishy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

VVS-Manuc
08-10-2005, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
... not even close to the real thing ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which german Jagdgeschwader were you serving with in WW2? Or which restored 109 do you fly on a regular base? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't deny that there's something wrong with slat-equipped aircraft, but your claim ... or better the tiny snippet I posted makes your post smell very fishy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

every Axis plane which has the capability to outturn/outrun/outclimb a ........ (fill in your favorite allied plane here) is unrealistic and way off! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

msalama
08-10-2005, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">His views are worth listening to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, most definitely. I just misunderstood how that 2nd CP was constructed...

But there's one thing everyone should remember nevertheless, and it's this: what we're flying with now is a pre-BoB BETA flightmodel. Yes, beta, and as we know betas are _always_ incorrect!

So please remember that before flaming Oleg & 1C to oblivion, eh?

LStarosta
08-10-2005, 11:44 AM
<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:
Faustnik, I mean civilian aircraft pilots, as in, say, Cessna guys. Of course, someone flying a vintage P-51 would have some valid iput to share... and of course, you'd also have to factor in new weights, because he's not lugging around guns and very heavy radio equipment....

I was merely talking about general aviation (only) pilots who have never flown WWII era planes. Read that comment again: "...that can't do basic aerobatics" doesn't apply to a P-51 owner, now, does it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see this is where armchair-only pilots try to get even with real life pilots who spend, often times, years of their lives learning an art and skill by saying that any knowledge of flight theory they have is irrelevant because somehow fighter airplanes are subject to different rules of physics than normal aircraft.

The biggest crock of horsesh1t I've ever seen.

Maybe a pilot's observations aren't aircraft-type specific, but all aircraft are subject to the same rules of flight, and knowledge of airmanship and aerodynamics transcends aircraft types.

I'm sick and tired when skilled pilots and those with any aeronautical knowledge get put down with their numbers and data by idiots whose only response to their work is "when's the last time you flew that fighter".

carguy_
08-10-2005, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
But there's one thing everyone should remember nevertheless, and it's this: what we're flying with now is a pre-BoB BETA flightmodel. Yes, beta, and as we know betas are _always_ incorrect!

So please remember that before flaming Oleg & 1C to oblivion, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good observation.

Oleg has always consequently stated that next generations of FM presented in IL2 are more complicated thus more realistic.

Now there are guys who say "no way,it is too easy to be more realistic" and the other group that says "more realistic doesn`t necessary mean harder".
Yet,if we take whine groups,each one attached to their favorite aircraft change their mind EVERYTIME something goes down with their whine plane performance.

To sum it up some groups completely deny post-patch(es) FM due to their plane changes yet they are obsessed with telling others that new,more complicated FM is not neccesary harder and is more realistic.

This applies the most to VVS and USAAF fans who for example cannot grasp the wingbreak FM change to this day yet they have stated repeatedly that more complicated FM is more realistic.

The new FM is the biggest change and at the same time preBoB FM.Even though it is alfa/beta/whatever,it presents a part of future BoB FM.That big change led whine groups to deny this change and state of FM drifting away from reality more and more.

So according to Oleg and 1C it gets more realistic every patch but according to aircraft lobbys it gets less realistic.

Seems logical to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

GR142_Astro
08-10-2005, 01:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:

I don't deny that there's something wrong with slat-equipped aircraft: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Not only a slat problem M8, but also something with the rudder and ailerons that seem to have control over the a/c's movement at rediculously slow speeds...as in below stall speeds. It's kind of funny to see a 109 jink at 50kph.

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

In all seriousness, the most Fishy plane in game at the moment is the whole 109 series from G to K. That's a shame since there are only 2 Luftwaffe types to choose from. Important aircraft such as the 109 and 190 should be modeled much better than what we have been left with in 4.01.

LeadSpitter_
08-10-2005, 01:55 PM
I would like to thank everyone for replying to this thread when it was in orr, Now may I ask why it was moved to GD, can you show me any difference in the threads currently in orr which were not moved?

It was specifically put in orr becuase oleg does read it occassionally and so do some of the game dev team, even it they do not reply its intention was to be read by them. This is why I posted it there and wanted it to stay there. For those who think its annoying prove me wrong what I said. Your free not to click on my threads so dont come in here and reply an insult.

ORR is for questions to the 1c dev team and for oleg to read, it has always been for that reason ever since catrix was community manager.

Now to the mod who moved it why and what choices are you making that only this thread gets moved to GD?? Please move it back to ORR thank you.

GR142-Pipper
08-10-2005, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
... not even close to the real thing ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which german Jagdgeschwader were you serving with in WW2? Or which restored 109 do you fly on a regular base? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I don't deny that there's something wrong with slat-equipped aircraft, but your claim ... or better the tiny snippet I posted makes your post smell very fishy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> So what exactly to do find fishy with the post?

GR142-Pipper

carguy_
08-10-2005, 03:52 PM
Leadspitter,the whole thing is about people not taking your words seriously anymore.

crazyivan1970
08-10-2005, 04:02 PM
What carguy said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kwiatos
08-10-2005, 04:23 PM
<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 LeadSpitter_:
To me I think the most important things that have to be worked on in this game keep getting overlooked.

Damage Models
- Dive accelaration & Energy bleed
- Roll Rates
- Intertia
- Full Elevator Compressibility, trim used for easing stick pressure
- Degrees of rudder deflection and rudder induced stalls
- Overheat Timings and working temp gauges
- Stalls being a severe penalty loss of all energy taking 1000-3000m recovery time.

These thing to me are more important then an ac being off 5-10 kmph at a specific altitude.

Also I think ubi should release a Platinum Editon of the game Including FB AEP PF all on one dvd drive for $39-$49. I really think it would bring more money in for 1c being able to buy everything once and make it worth fixing some of these issues in game for the devs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> What you're saying is that the damage AND flight models are off. I support your view. The damage and particularly the flight models are just drifting further and further from reality. The 109 now is just an all-turning, all-gunning, instant energy-changing, no-blackout farce...not even close to the real thing. What's really troubling is that this has consciously been done...it's definitely no accident. So, do I have confidence that BoB will be the "answer"? I'm afraid not.

I also concur with you in that if Oleg and company needs to charge for an upgrade in order to maintain a responsible business position, they should do so. But just get the flight and damage models right on the planes that presently exist. No more new features; no more new planes. Also important, no more new complexity when the basics are so far off.

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very good post GR142-Pipper.

What we have now in 4.01 is big mix. One hand we have some good moddeled FM like Yaks, P-51, P-47, Fw190 etc other hand we have very funny FM like Bf109, La, Laggs. After many patches we still have strange things in DM and weapon effectivity - buggy DM Fw190, to hard 109 on 0,50 cal fire, to weak 37mm cannon after 4.01.

So i write on these:

"No more new features; no more new planes. Also important, no more new complexity when the basics are so far off"

And to Crazy Ivan - WHY YOU MOVED FROM ORR SOME GOOD THEME TO DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPORTANT THINGS IN PF AND YOU DONT TOUCH MANY STUPID TOPICS WHICH NOONE CARE?????

crazyivan1970
08-10-2005, 04:33 PM
Oh i see Kwiatos, this is one of those good and constructive gimme threads, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, page some of the mods, they might move it back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LeadSpitter_
08-10-2005, 10:20 PM
Take a look here ivan http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=frm&s=400102&f=63110913 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?a=frm&amp;s=400102&amp;f=63110913) you might want to move the whole orr to GD, theres nothing in any orr thread thats any different except im not suggesting change this plane, change that plane, im talking all ac in general and topics listed above.

I speak about the new torque being a + btw can you show me one positive thread in orr? I dont get your choice to move this ivan if it was you and its not even worth the time contacting anyone about. thats why I asked here and not thru pm. If it was you I think you just you made a very poor choice at moving a thread directed at Oleg and 1c's dev team, that is the whole reason why i have posted it in ORR I dont take it personally.

Perhaps you might want to take the time to write a in detail ORR forum guidelines thread and make it a sticky checking with ubirazz, A orr guideline explaining exactly what can be asked and what cannot be asked or spoken about in orr. And also require a pm from the moderator to the thread starter why it was moved, why guideline it broke. That would be a good start for these forums.

I have been here since you have ivan maybe even longer if you check jg27_leadspitter and the name leadspitter names. This leadspitter_ name was made more recently.

Kwiatos
08-11-2005, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Oh i see Kwiatos, this is one of those good and constructive gimme threads, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, page some of the mods, they might move it back http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

These topic is not constructive too?

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/6941040243


I asked you Ivan in PM about move it to ORR where is place for such threads but you even dont answer.

LeadSpitter_
08-11-2005, 02:04 AM
name one person on these forums you can take seriously anymore.