PDA

View Full Version : REQUEST: Priority to patch fixes over adding non-WW2 aircraft ! (Adult people only)



XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:18 PM
I reopen this question because the other thread was kidnapped by some children.



Currently Il-2FB has some 80 flyable planes. That`s a lot. In fact, already more than in any other flightsim.

But also there are just too many bugs in the FM; the ORR is loud of that, it`s not neccesary to list them all, you know them well.

3rd party modellers added their work to incldude many more planes, both that flew or did not flew on the Eastern Front. I think most of us agrees on that any new WW2 historical plane is welcomed, even if it never saw EF action. Classic types, such as the Zero, Spitfire, Mustang etc. are needed in every WW2 flightsim. The amount of work spent on them is not a waste or bad decision.

But still, I think the planes that are accepted got a little out of hand. Since it`s Oleg and his programmers who are doing some 70% of the job when a new plane comes, it`s clear that every new added plane takes worktime away from FM and DM fixes of the current planes, hence the loudness in ORR. Which is quite fair, since there are some issues that are not solved for years by now.

So I think more energy and worktime should be spent on DM FM fixes, and instead of giving 5 new plane with every patch, I think it would be more welcome to include only 1 or two, and spend rest of the work on fixing. Adding new planes is not a priority. We have enough planes already. Add them, but it should not effect the fixing of the errors. And as while as I am at support of introducing classic combat aircraft types, I am much more sceptic about the neccesity of wasting time and and energy, that could be invested into bug fixing instead, on some exotic planes, which never saw WW2 combat (less of a concern if at least we have flgith test for them..), and especially those which never saw combat, didn`t even see service, and sometimes not even a prototype was built.

Why to waste the energy in making the FM of these planes based on guessing, instead of concentrating on FM and DM fixes? I think it`s far more important to have 80 correctly modelled a/c instead of adding a few fantasy aircraft, that would ruin gameplay, and would be banned from most DF servers as such, so all the time invested them is wasted.

Comments?


To make clear to core of it: What do you want more, fixes in the FM/DM, with some classic a/c addons in the meantime, and only then those fantasy, non-WW2 aircraft, or should it be aircraft addons all the way, who cares about bugs?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:18 PM
I reopen this question because the other thread was kidnapped by some children.



Currently Il-2FB has some 80 flyable planes. That`s a lot. In fact, already more than in any other flightsim.

But also there are just too many bugs in the FM; the ORR is loud of that, it`s not neccesary to list them all, you know them well.

3rd party modellers added their work to incldude many more planes, both that flew or did not flew on the Eastern Front. I think most of us agrees on that any new WW2 historical plane is welcomed, even if it never saw EF action. Classic types, such as the Zero, Spitfire, Mustang etc. are needed in every WW2 flightsim. The amount of work spent on them is not a waste or bad decision.

But still, I think the planes that are accepted got a little out of hand. Since it`s Oleg and his programmers who are doing some 70% of the job when a new plane comes, it`s clear that every new added plane takes worktime away from FM and DM fixes of the current planes, hence the loudness in ORR. Which is quite fair, since there are some issues that are not solved for years by now.

So I think more energy and worktime should be spent on DM FM fixes, and instead of giving 5 new plane with every patch, I think it would be more welcome to include only 1 or two, and spend rest of the work on fixing. Adding new planes is not a priority. We have enough planes already. Add them, but it should not effect the fixing of the errors. And as while as I am at support of introducing classic combat aircraft types, I am much more sceptic about the neccesity of wasting time and and energy, that could be invested into bug fixing instead, on some exotic planes, which never saw WW2 combat (less of a concern if at least we have flgith test for them..), and especially those which never saw combat, didn`t even see service, and sometimes not even a prototype was built.

Why to waste the energy in making the FM of these planes based on guessing, instead of concentrating on FM and DM fixes? I think it`s far more important to have 80 correctly modelled a/c instead of adding a few fantasy aircraft, that would ruin gameplay, and would be banned from most DF servers as such, so all the time invested them is wasted.

Comments?


To make clear to core of it: What do you want more, fixes in the FM/DM, with some classic a/c addons in the meantime, and only then those fantasy, non-WW2 aircraft, or should it be aircraft addons all the way, who cares about bugs?

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:19 PM
Author: James_Gang
Rank: Adept of the Thread
Date: 06/11/03 05:33PM




Agreed.

Further I vote to stop giving the illusion of realism simply through realistic looking pictures/graphics, and simply plugging in data that the flight engine obviously has trouble realistically rendering.

Instead one should model aircraft based upon realistic data, as well as their realistic performance and flight characteristics against other flight models in the game.





http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:23 PM
Author: BombTaxi
Rank: Follower of the Boards
Date: 06/11/03 06:00PM


James_Gang wrote:
-
- Instead one should model aircraft based upon
- realistic data, as well as their realistic
- performance and flight characteristics against other
- flight models in the game.
-
-

The FM/DMs are based on reams of the best data available...ok it isnt implemented perfectly but THE PATCH IS ON THE WAY!

New a\c's are the reason this game has not left my CD drive since I bought IL2 nearly ayear ago.Bring 'em on!



Author: Macchinista
Rank: Postnewbie (Try Again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Date: 06/11/03 06:07PM




Negative.
It's good to have new airplanes. For the future, I hope we'll have also new maps (Western Front), new vehicles, armors, ships, objects, ecc...
Fixing bugs, FM and DM do not require so much energy to force a stop of new production.
Moreover, you know that 10 guys here have 10 different opinions about FM, DM... and each of 10 say they are right and "historically correct". Bah!! So your idea is unuseful and leads only to other quarrels.
The only compromise to resolve this problem would be an Editor Tool for us fans. But most of you don't agree. So... let's go on in this way, and simply let's take what Oleg gives us.



Author: musickna
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 06/11/03 06:23PM




I'm grateful for any new aircraft - fantasy or not. Also for the work being done to address bugs. So I certainly will not sign this 'petition'.

Truth is, that if I was one the talented guys who is actually doing the modeling of new aircraft and the programming to improve this game, I might be a little annoyed at the shrill demands of the few non-creative users who seem to regard this game as a glass half-empty.

I do not find this to be a bug-filled unplayable game. I have been playing it daily since it came out and have found fewer annoying bugs in this game than in any other initial release simulation. It has given me great pleasure.



Author: ITA_Manta
Rank: Postnewbie (Try Again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Date: 06/11/03 08:37PM


Isegrim I totally agree with you!

Cheers


Author: Mulla_Stondaa
Rank: Newbie
Date: 06/11/03 08:57PM




For once V.O. Isegrim has a good point. It is an old point and has been settled quite some time back, in fact it is one of the few points on which O. Maddox has given straight and clear answers, but maybe Isegrim missed this.

But he makes one truly amazing statement, quote:

-Currently Il-2FB has some 80 flyable planes. That`s
- a lot.

Yes, indeed, that is a lot. A lot more than is the case. _Where_ are these 80 flyable planes? I must have bought a defective game because mine doesn't have them. Any more than Il-2 Sturmovik had the 31 it was claimed to have.

There are about 30 different flyable planes in FB. "About" because some points can be argued, like whether you count 109E, F and G as different planes. But not much more than 30 by the most generous count.

The Bf-109G2 and G6 are not different airplanes. They are different _versions_ of the same one. This is also true of the P-40E and M, P-39N and Q, two-cannon and three-cannon La-7, the many versions of the Il-2, etc. Some of the VVS planes are not even officially recognized variants but field modifications.

Ubi did this practice of counting variants as separate aircraft when they packaged the original Sturmovik game. Carl Norman himself personally admitted in GD, last year, that this was "misleading" and that they should have said "versions." However this did not stop Ubi from doing the same deceptive labeling on FB. They admit it's misleading but they go on doing it? What do you call that? I believe the US government calls it "deceptive labeling." Where I come from it is called simply "lying."

Please understand, I personally do _not_ want more aircraft, not until they get the present ones right (if they ever do.)

But we are constantly told, "No one owes you more airplanes. No one owes you a patch. No one owes you anything."

Well, strictly speaking Ubi (I say nothing about Mr. Maddox, I do not know if he has anything to do with this) _does_ owe the customers something. They bought a product which was clearly labeled as containing something that it did not in fact contain. It can be argued that Ubi has an obligation to make up the deficit.

(And there are some that are needed. FB was supposedly going to introduce a Finnish campaign. Yes, it did, _if_ you fly on the Russian side. On the Finnish side the only flyables are the Brewster and a Hurricane variant that saw little combat - both with bugs and incorrect FMs. Plenty of Finnish AIs though. Because Finns are only good for targets, eh Gospodin Maddox? Never mind, this is a different topic.)

All the same, Mr. Isegrim's basic point is right, much as I hate to say it. FB is too full of bugs and errors in the present aircraft at this time. If more are introduced, they will have bugs too (always happens) and developers will have even more to fix. Much as I would like to have the flyable Fiat and MS and the Hawk etc., they are right to focus first on cleaning up what we have.

It would be nice if they would post a message: "Dear customers. We apologize for releasing a defective product that was not yet ready for the market. MS released CFS3 and we panicked. We ask that you please be patient as we try to sort out the bugs and correct the mistakes. Later on we will make it up to you with some nice new planes."

But this is not going to happen so meanwhile let us not confuse the issue with demands for more and more new planes.

And please, V.O. Isegrim, do not make any more posts in which you make even a little bit of sense. Agreeing with you makes my nose hurt.



Voi vittu!



Author: Strafnaya
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 06/11/03 09:03PM


C´moon duded, PPl wants new planes, and Ubi & Oleg want money. its all business. we all can bet which is the way we go with this thing, to the more planes or for bug hunt.





http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:27 PM
Again,I agree.Me110 is missing in FB but I`d gave it up for 90% bug fixes.

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:27 PM
Author: Quax46
Rank: Lonely Postman
Date: 06/12/03 05:06PM




Love the new planes. Absolutely love 'em. Keep 'em coming, Oleg! And thanks to the people out there who have given us the benefit of their talents to keep the game interesting.

I don't care for the way the Fw 190 cockpit is modeled, and I don't like the handling of the thing either--so I solve the problem by choosing to fly something else. It's not such a big deal. Many of the people out there who continue to lobby for a particular "fix" are unhappy by their own choice. There's so much about this game to love that I don't see the sense in harping about the same issues over and over again.

Appreciate the game for what it is--the best of its kind anywhere.



Author: JG5__Jerry
Rank: Postnewbie (Try Again /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Date: 06/12/03 06:40PM

James_Gang wrote:

- Besides, everyone in the flight sim business knows
- that 90% of those that buy and fly these flight sims
- wouldn't know a 737 from a 767.

That's not really true - flightsims are considered a 'hardcore' genre played by people who have a specific interest (which is different to the rest of PC and console buying public). And I speak as someone who's worked in the games industry for 8 years

WRT the original post - isn't it assuming a great deal to think that development of the new planes takes time away from fixing issues with the game itself?

*****



Author: Bogun
Rank: Follower of the Boards
Date: 06/13/03 08:05PM




USAFHelos wrote:
- There was still a decent thread here somewhere
- before you crapped it up with ......crap.


Helios,

Any thread Cowboy "blesses" with his attention goes to crap - there are no exceptions.
It is better to just ignore him.

Anyway, Insegrim had a point.

1. It is better to concentrate developer's attention on making what we already have bug-free first.

2. If new planes are considered, they should be either from the short list of historically significant planes (P-51, Bf-110, Ta-152, Pe-2, Zero, Spitfire, CR32) or the planes not requiring much of the programming time to develop (Fw190A-3, Fw190A-6, Yak-9B, Yak-9UT, etc.).
Some planes of the later group can be distributed via patch.
New significant types should only come with complete correct FM/DM via add-on.

Adding new planes is important to keep interest to the game high, but we can weight for the paid add-on, if information about new planes is constantly trickling through "Development Update" channel.

We cannot weight to have correct FM and DM for the planes already in the game - bugs and errors do spoil the "gaming experience".



Author: FW190fan
Rank: Adept of the Thread
Date: 06/13/03 09:06PM


Vo101_Isegrim wrote:


- So I think more energy and worktime should be spent
- on DM FM fixes, and instead of giving 5 new plane
- with every patch.


I agree with this in principal. If I had to choose a priority #1 between new a/c added and FM/DM fixes I would definitely go for the fixes of current a/c.

But only as a priority, I'm in favor of as many new flyables as possible and don't really have a problem with paying the $ for them if it comes to that.


But what I really hope we have one day is a big ole map of western Europe.



Author: Bogun
Rank: Follower of the Boards
Date: 06/13/03 09:24PM




Helos,
I missed the post where Oleg said - upcoming patch is the "final tweak".
Hope not. Hope if compelling evidence will be presented to prove that certain aspects of the game are wrong - Oleg will still consider addressing them. It was the case so far, hope it will continue.

About pleasing all/all the time - this is just not possible, there will be always someone who feel that his particular issue had not been addressed, and stay unhappy. We should just learn to live with some of the "imperfections" of the game like underperforming ShVAK cannons or Fw190A-8 capable climbing to 5000m in 5 minutes with %100 fuel and ammo.

There will always be aspects of the game which can be fixed/improved, but at some point Oleg's team has to go on to a new projects, leaving the current IL-2:FB behind. I do not believe we are at this point just yet. This game is the best flight simulator to date. It can stay at the top and have people talking about it for long time if it is considered to be the best by players. For that - discovered issues should be addressed one way or another.
Not necessarily by tying to appease "loud mouths" but providing good/timely feedback why certain things were done certain way and, of course, with the promise to fix the bug if it was proven to be a bug. Compromises (not significant compromises, no compromises on speed or climb or roll rate) to keep game playable should be considered too.

For example current P-47 or high speed Fw190 roll rate is a bug, it has to be fixed, but if someone feels like improving his Bf109 roll to the same level - sorry, no carrot there.

An example of non-significant compromise - something like narrower bars in Bf109 and Fw190 cockpits. And we should not have pushed "historical correctness" aspect of it, but ask for the change in the name of "playability". Would Oleg not be "painted in the corner" with accusations of incorrectly modeling Fw-190 cockpit, I'm sure he would have considered little "eye candy" for Wurger lovers.

There is also still money to be made with this game for UBI/1C. That's were paid add-on comes in. Who of us refuse to shell $20 for the chance to play with P-51 or Zero in IL-2?

With great respect,


AKA_Bogun



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



I have cut out the BS/flamer etc. posts. Stay on topic.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-13-2003, 11:56 PM
100 % agree, i think thats the basic problem of Il2 /FB, that the flight-physics engine is fed with realistic data but cant give a realistic performance in many cases, especially with heavier and highwingloaded planes.
Sorry for basically repeating your point Isegrim, but i think it cannot be pointed out enough: Make the relative performance of planes more accurate or this whole thing will be getting out of hand completely. More planes will make this relative balancing only much more difficult. We will end up with a fantasy game in which demonhurricanes and Zeros will shoot down everything.

Yours,
II/JG54_Zent

I want an overmodelled He 51 pls ! (pre 39 german biplane, used in spanish civil war and Poland Blitzkrieg)

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
- Author: James_Gang
- Rank: Adept of the Thread
- Date: 06/11/03 05:33PM
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Agreed.
-
- Further I vote to stop giving the illusion of
- realism simply through realistic looking
- pictures/graphics, and simply plugging in data that
- the flight engine obviously has trouble
- realistically rendering.
-
- Instead one should model aircraft based upon
- realistic data, as well as their realistic
- performance and flight characteristics against other
- flight models in the game.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src="http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-deskt
- opweb.jpg">
- 'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'
-
- Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
- (Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto
- of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)
-
- Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim
-

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:02 AM
Agreed.

Fix the modeling first via patches.

I personally, would be more than happy to pay Oleg for new aircraft through an add-on. Now that's what I call bottom line support of the sim.

Although, I know some here would not like this.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:07 AM
What`s bottom line support of the sim...it`s like opposite to top of the line?

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan

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

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:30 AM
Totally agree what Vo101_Isegrim said.

***********
<img src=http://jackly.cpgl.net/bbs/attachment.php?s=&postid=19249>
It's Real, It's Fun!

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:33 AM
WHAT BUGS? there are bugs?. I have not really noticed any. I do spend most of my time flying instead of sittin around in here. Of course I never flew the real planes represented here like you guys obviously did. I'm glad there are seasoned aviators like yerselves around to point out these bugs to novices such as myself and the developers. Again thanks a heap fellers.... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif :P

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:36 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:

"What`s bottom line support of the sim...it`s like opposite to top of the line?

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan"

-----------

Def;

Bottom line support- With ones wallet, instead of blind allegiance.

I was referring to supporting Maddox, the development team and others that devote their time to model certain aspects of this sim with their wallet by buying top quality add-ons rather than expecting him to release such add-ons included with patches that should only be used to fix obvious issues with the programming.

My view is that is one desires a professional quality simulation, one should be willing to do what professionals do. Be willing to pay for it, instead of inspecting much of it for free.

Let's welcome Mr. Maddox to capitalism. That should improve his demeanor and willingness to cooperate immensely.




Message Edited on 06/13/0307:41PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:40 AM
Thanks for clarification...english is still second language to me...so i get lost in the fancy expressions .. sometimes lol.

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan

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

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:45 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:

"Thanks for clarification...english is still second language to me...so i get lost in the fancy expressions .. sometimes lol."

-----------

No problem dude. You're alright with me.

And believe me when I say you definately do not want me to try to speak your native language.

I'm frequently misunderstood here even in my native languagehttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:02 AM
Someone should create a priorities list of fixes and additions for the FB patch. To put them all on one thread or post would make it very easy to scan through and see what needs work in the sim, from FMs to glass refraction to pilots sitting on their parachutes. There are so many nitpicks in ORR, it would be nice if the legitimate concerns were separated from the minor things that can definitely wait. Just an idea.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:58 AM
a_bratlien wrote:

"Someone should create a priorities list of fixes and additions for the FB patch. To put them all on one thread or post would make it very easy to scan through and see what needs work in the sim, from FMs to glass refraction to pilots sitting on their parachutes. There are so many nitpicks in ORR, it would be nice if the legitimate concerns were separated from the minor things that can definitely wait. Just an idea."

---------

This is as good a place as any.

We've tried this for quite sometime here. In fact going on almost 3 years.

But there are a few here in the business of hijacking threads and turning them into character assasination or name calling contest, when one even mentions a possible bug in IL-2/FB. As well, there seems to be a major disagreement over what is a legitimate concern vs. a minor or non-existent one. Some pilots here don't believe any criticism of the modeling in FB is justified or warranted. It has been this way for as long as I have been associated with the game. Which is since the release of the demo.

Let me say I completely agree with Vo101_Isegrim, that considering the current state of affairs and many apparent bugs and issues in FB, fixing these bugs and errors should have a higher priority than add-ons.

Bump--



Message Edited on 06/13/0310:00PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:34 AM
The fact of the matter is that (1) the "bug fix" patch is coming this month and (2) the "airplane addons" will come later. It's as simple as that. I emailed Oleg to ask what the timeline is for the He 162, and he responded in kind. I'm not going to post here what he wrote, because I know some of you will jump all over it and analyze it for pages on end. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I/JG54^Lukas
He 162A-2 Cockpit Modeler

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:35 AM
Negative.
Having new airplanes is good; we still lack a lot of good and interesting airplane to fly and non-flyable.
The FM and DM bug fix can be carried on at the same time, with no great problems.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:58 AM
OMG.

Its just the same old people, trying to take the same old high road, yelling the same old things.

Its one thing to complain about bugs, that is important, but to try and tell a guy how to run his business cries of some over estimated self importance.

This forum is for Bug reporting and game suggestions....did the title change to "Tell me how to run my business"?

Maybe you guys really need a thread like this to have all to yourselves. Then you can post back and forth to each other commenting on the same old thing that was said the post prior.

Maybe you need an 8 page thread that is full of your "Why Oleg sucks" remarks.

Hey I know...maybe you can go create your own sim and you won't have to worry about beating this one up every day.

Heywood_Jablomi....ummm no I will not! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!


&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>
&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Helos.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:20 AM
I agree 110% with Isegrim. He's right on.


And he did in a polite fashion too! Please fix the planes we have instead of adding new buggy ones that aren't even in the EF.





_______________________________
Hauptmann Jochen "Heidi" Heiden
Jagderband 44
www.JagdVerband44.com (http://www.JagdVerband44.com)

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 08:22 AM
I agree with Isegrim. No more planes until bugs are fixed. It's worse than useless having hundreds of aircraft if only some of them fly or fight realistically.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:17 PM
i must agree with Isegrim too
this is a place for bug reports and its better to fix all the bugs first (DM FM) for the curent planes in a patch.
and then let come in a addon for about 20Euros all the new planes in exelent payed quality.

Not have a bunch of cheap modelled new planes for free.

and why are u calling Budapest a slum.? just curiuse

do u belive USA is better just becouse u r grandpas and grandmas was build for you a few skycrapers (may some were from Budapest too /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif )
did u ever saw a skycraper?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:30 PM
Reality is lost on a few people...

Oleg said already that he isn't going to have half of his team sitting on their thumbs while the other half is busy fixing bugs. New aircraft will continue to be developed.

For the rest, as Helos said...this is a bug report/Suggestion forum, not a "Tell Oleg how the Flightsim Business works" forum.

There are PLENTY of people flying this sim without feeling the need to sit in here and complain day in day out about minor bugs. Most of those people want new planes. It's not YOUR business to speak on behalf of everyone.

And lastly, your whole point is moot anyway. You are working from the assumption that new planes take resources away from bug-fixing. That is simple not true, so let it rest already.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:42 PM
I agree to Isegrim, and I would even take it farther, to maybe REMOVE some the vaste amount of planes. I think it´s a bit odd fighting a I-153 with a 262 in the same game??

In my opinion the game should have like three sections with one time period each. Early - middle - Late war types planes. I know some planes continue to serve the whole war though in the frontline. But even the majority of the planes in the game are "NEVER" used (very seldom at least).
I for my part tend to fly like 4-5 types over and over again and I am sure that goes for most of us.

But first of all fix the FM´s.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:46 PM
I agree with Helos. I'm getting very fed with these type arguments. I've not seen anyone here with any personal knowledge of how 1C is structured and run - so all this complaining about time being wasted on new planes instead of fixing current ones is based simply on assumptions, not reality.

Prove your facts first, then talk. That's the way to be credible.



<img src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>

Eeeeeeeeeee.......

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:55 PM
I´m only waiting for the Ju88 and Pe2+3.

And when did we get these marvelous....

http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/110missing.jpg

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 12:56 PM
This whole thread is just lame.


And it has the serious problem of being adressed to "adults only", while only kids can contribute anything to the "topic".


And then again most of the posters in here seem to have a reading-problem.

Isegrim is talking about "non-WW2-a/c"...

Pheeeew....what exactly could that be?


Well, after arguing and arguing one could probably agree that the P-80 and the Go229, both modelled by Gibbage, could be seen as "non-WW2-a/c", others don`t come into my mind.

And these both planes are sill far from an "adding into the game" status.


So, finally two questions stay open:

1) What is this thread about?

2) Isegrim, are you bored?

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:21 PM
looks like you dont get it Nowi, nothing to be said against new planes, we all want that, but the problem is to create a Simexperience which is somehow consistent with history and we have seen throughout all the patches (which brought new planes) how extremely difficult it seems to keep the performance of the planes relative to each other in the balance.
So, i want the P51 flyable too, and the Me110 and so forth, but not for the price of having even more new imbalances. You call them small minor bugs ??? The whole FW family castrated, completely œberhurricanes ?? A p47 which has the rollrate of a B17 just to mention a few more outstanding things ?? Please, you cant be serious ??

Yours,
II/JG54_Zent

IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- Reality is lost on a few people...
-
- Oleg said already that he isn't going to have half
- of his team sitting on their thumbs while the other
- half is busy fixing bugs. New aircraft will continue
- to be developed.
-
- For the rest, as Helos said...this is a bug
- report/Suggestion forum, not a "Tell Oleg how the
- Flightsim Business works" forum.
-
- There are PLENTY of people flying this sim without
- feeling the need to sit in here and complain day in
- day out about minor bugs. Most of those people want
- new planes. It's not YOUR business to speak on
- behalf of everyone.
-
- And lastly, your whole point is moot anyway. You are
- working from the assumption that new planes take
- resources away from bug-fixing. That is simple not
- true, so let it rest already.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:37 PM
Yes, Isegrims assumptiosn about time structure are just a guess and an invalid argument.
I think a btter argument would have been: In the past we always had new patches with new planes only to discover that some of were overmodelled and tipped balances considerably/unhistorically/unnaturally and as a consequence everything else in FM had to be changed and so forth. Several of us had to relearn/get used to different flight models of the same plane over and over again. It gets kind of strange and i do fear that it will be like that again, new planes are modelled only to discover in everyday gameplay that they dont really fit into the whole structure.
What I want is more consideration of the whole game and the reality it models rather then throw in more FM before this is fixed what we have. If 1C/Maddox would be able to model new planes and integrate them with such diligence that it would be correct and not defying everything we know about relative plane performance from history (example: Hurricane V. FWA4, A5 or 109E4-7) i would of course not object. I like ne wplanes too.

YOurs,
I/JG54_Zent

Icarus999 wrote:
- I agree with Helos. I'm getting very fed with these
- type arguments. I've not seen anyone here with any
- personal knowledge of how 1C is structured and run -
- so all this complaining about time being wasted on
- new planes instead of fixing current ones is based
- simply on assumptions, not reality.
-
- Prove your facts first, then talk. That's the way
- to be credible.
-
-
-
-
- <img
- src=http://www.johnsonsmith.com/images/p1039.jpg>
-
- Eeeeeeeeeee.......
-

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 01:59 PM
Zentaurus, I dont know what you are doing, but I've never had a problem with 190 vs Hurricane etc...

You are blowing some parts of the FM waaaaay out of proportion.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 02:09 PM
Well Nowi, then lets meet one day in those two (A4, A5) and i give you 1000 m height advantage... hehehe...i am looking forward to it, of course you can run, but not stay and fight, something which LW pilots did in reality even with Spits which were considered to be far superior then Hurris. Sundays and Tuesdays from 22:00 to 2:00 MEZ i am mostly found in HL, any other date aranged by mail#
Martinvonelm@online.de
If you want that match i am open to it, maybe you are the better pilot and prove me wrong, i will be first to admit it then. Lets take it easy, an experiment between comrades..

Yours,
II/JG54_Zent


IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- Zentaurus, I dont know what you are doing, but I've
- never had a problem with 190 vs Hurricane etc...
-
- You are blowing some parts of the FM waaaaay out of
- proportion.
-
-

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:02 PM
Stats for the thread opinion so far:

11 people basically agrees with that FM/DM fixes should get priority

2 guys expressed (more or less) the need for new planes as a priority, bug fixing being a secondary importance/non-existen issue.

6 people who have came in do their usual things: not posting on topic, just showing how f. smart they are, insult others, flaming, accusing etc., or just simply enjoy the feeling of being an xxxxxxxx.



So I guess the public opinion is to have bug fixes first.

Carry on.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/14/0306:15PM by EURO_Snoopy

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 03:17 PM
Ah, so you are one of the german pilots getting their bum kicked in HL who want a boost to their plane so they can win?


Zentaurus wrote:
- Well Nowi, then lets meet one day in those two (A4,
- A5) and i give you 1000 m height advantage...
- hehehe...i am looking forward to it, of course you
- can run, but not stay and fight, something which LW
- pilots did in reality even with Spits which were
- considered to be far superior then Hurris. Sundays
- and Tuesdays from 22:00 to 2:00 MEZ i am mostly
- found in HL, any other date aranged by mail#
- Martinvonelm@online.de
- If you want that match i am open to it, maybe you
- are the better pilot and prove me wrong, i will be
- first to admit it then. Lets take it easy, an
- experiment between comrades..
-
- Yours,
- II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:16 PM
As I recall the main purpose of the upcoming "patch" is indeed bug fixes and FM repairs.

Why are you still posting on this?

Oh well, at least you were not complaining about refraction of armored glass, or some other such nonsense.

<center><FONT color="red">[b]BlitzPig_EL</FONT>[B]<CENTER> http://old.jccc.net/~droberts/p40/images/p40home.gif
</img>.
"Courage is the price that Life exacts for granting peace."

--Amelia Earhart--

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:20 PM
there is ppl fixis and and other ppl developing more aircraft what is great, there is no point to make them stop, i dont care if the game one day takes 4 gigas or more, i just want as many as oleg wants to give us, ty oleg

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:28 PM
ElAurens wrote:
- As I recall the main purpose of the upcoming "patch"
- is indeed bug fixes and FM repairs.
-
- Why are you still posting on this?
-

Probably you better understand if you question yourself the following:

Was the FM/DM without bugs back then with the old Il-2 after patches?

Did the new planes brought even more bugs?

You really belive that the "fixing" patch will just solve every, or just even most of the issues?

Frankly, my experience is different with those patches.

http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:45 PM
USAFHelos wrote:
- OMG.
-
- Its just the same old people, trying to take the
- same old high road, yelling the same old things.
-
- Its one thing to complain about bugs, that is
- important, but to try and tell a guy how to run his
- business cries of some over estimated self
- importance.
-
- This forum is for Bug reporting and game
- suggestions....did the title change to "Tell me how
- to run my business"?
-

We are not telling Oleg how to run this business. Oleg is a man enough to show himself whether or not he can do it. And as we recall, most players of IL-2:FB are offline players. They are Oleg's priority.

During the time of original IL-2, we saw daylight of multitude of patches. However, how many of these patches actually tried to fix something really wrong ? Not many. This gives a suggestion that either Oleg can't run his business properly, or the fixing of things does not interest him. It might also be, that the offline players do not desire for fixes, in which case we would be left outnumbered.

My point of view on this is clear:
1. Fix the bugs
2. Fix the a/c, FM/DM issues
3. Remove unnecessary graphics like window frames in houses and every other graphic which is not RELEVANT to the game.
4. The new a/c and their implementation.

-Celorfie

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 04:47 PM
then u guys, u guys just dont install the planes patch, only the fix patchs and be happy, 2 patches.. so u can know wich one u need.

list of patches:

1.Airplanes patch

2.Fix patch <------

You take the Fix only patch shown by an arrow, and u dont install planes patch, u and all your freinds who think there will be problem with more planes, you guys do not install it so you guys may still play together,... remember only install the fix patch shown by an arrow ty

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:33 PM
I fully agree, Isegrim.


1.) fix bugs and game disballances

2.) add new aircraft when the existing are really finished



P.S.:Some guys in here seem not to want to contribute anything to topics, but only flame around, yell what people should post and what they should not, or they enjoy annoying other people who try to get something right.

Please don't use this forum to re-build your ego, you only lose more of it by doing such posts.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:47 PM
I once again completely and totally disagree with Sally's assertions. Which is no surprise. It is a completely conceited view point to believe that somehow someone here is going to determine Oleg's priorities of work. That folks around here somehow know what is better for 1C than Oleg does. That, with absolutely NO knowledge of either the content of or the amount of work put into the patch, people would suggest that enough emphasis isn't being placed on it. Thank goodness these aren't the people who make the policy for game development of 1C.

And kudos to Issy for his self-excluding thread title. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/mech.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#FF0000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#696969";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#696969";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>
&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>



Message Edited on 06/14/0312:48PM by MachineII

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 05:49 PM
So when do the ADULT's show up in here? Thought it was for them only.

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:33 PM
You must be this tall to post in this thread:

--------------------------------------------
(please scroll to the top of your Fw190 view limiting monitor)

<html> <body><p align="center">http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/sig3.jpg
<font color=red>If.I.could..just.reach.my.utility.belt!</font> </body>
<center><font color=yellow>BlitzPigMachine<font>

&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];};var YourPicName='http://users.adelphia.net/~machineii/images/mech.gif'; var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName</script>&lt;script>d="doc";doc=window[d+"ument"];var a=doc.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#FF0000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#696969";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#696969";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>
&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>


&lt;script language="JavaScript">
< !--

window.open = SymRealWinOpen;

//-->
</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 06:36 PM
Isegrim, you are definitely on your way to lose every reliability. As you are not stupid, I must assume that you are simply trolling, if not worse.


It has been announced on these boards several times, that the bug-fixing patch will come first. So what are you arguing about?

El_Aurens asked the same, and you replied:

Vo101_Isegrim wrote:

- Probably you better understand if you question
- yourself the following:
-
- Was the FM/DM without bugs back then with the old
- Il-2 after patches?
-
- Did the new planes brought even more bugs?
-
- You really belive that the "fixing" patch will just
- solve every, or just even most of the issues?
-
- Frankly, my experience is different with those
- patches.


So, why exactly is that an answer to the question El_Aurens was asking, and me again?

And if you generally doubts that a patch will fix the issues, what has it to do with other planes
("You really believe that the "fixing" patch etc etc", see above)?

Why not just waiting for the patch, which is announced as a patch, and NOT as an add-on?


And to those who are unable to read (the "Isegrim, I agree totally"-poster):

Isegrim, I`m still waiting for an answer, what this all has to do with "non-WW2-airplanes"?
You don`t refer this thread to planes like the Bf110, the P-51, the Zero or whatever, as these are clearly and without any doubt WW2-planes, aren`t they?

This is no error by mistake in your thread-title, as you post the same nonsense in your original post.


Would you please answer my questions?





Message Edited on 06/14/0306:37PM by leonid05

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:17 PM
Uh, uh, you disappoint me Nowi, so you prefer personal insulting to a fair match proofing your claims..
I expected more of a JG54 pilot. If you estimate my skills so low you wouldnt loose anyway, wouldnt you ??
Still open to meet anytime,

Yours,
II/JG54_Zent

Ah, by the way, yes, sometimes i get my @ss kicked, you not ? But i dont want no unfair boost, i just want to understand why some historically inferior planes are so über in FB and some historically great planes are such bricks.

IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- Ah, so you are one of the german pilots getting
- their bum kicked in HL who want a boost to their
- plane so they can win?
-
-
- Zentaurus wrote:
-- Well Nowi, then lets meet one day in those two (A4,
-- A5) and i give you 1000 m height advantage...
-- hehehe...i am looking forward to it, of course you
-- can run, but not stay and fight, something which LW
-- pilots did in reality even with Spits which were
-- considered to be far superior then Hurris. Sundays
-- and Tuesdays from 22:00 to 2:00 MEZ i am mostly
-- found in HL, any other date aranged by mail#
-- Martinvonelm@online.de
-- If you want that match i am open to it, maybe you
-- are the better pilot and prove me wrong, i will be
-- first to admit it then. Lets take it easy, an
-- experiment between comrades..
--
-- Yours,
-- II/JG54_Zent
-
-
-
-

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 09:51 PM
Leonid, I think you don`t need me to answer your question. You can troll here, and all over ORR very well without my, or anyone else`s help, or answers, together with your colleges.

As for your question, the answers can already be found in my posts. It`s very simple: we would like FM/DM fixes to enjoy priority over adding fantasy/arcade/ahistorical/fantasy aircraft to Il2FB.

May your style improve, we might even chat about that in details.




http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim


Message Edited on 06/14/0311:04PM by Vo101_Isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:25 PM
Vo101_Isegrim wrote:
-
- Leonid, I think you don`t need me to answer your
- question. You can troll here, and all over ORR very
- well without my, or anyone else`s help, or answers,
- together with your college.


Hmmm...no.

I wouldn`t say your rhetoric skills improved since yesterday. I mean, it still sounds nice, but...
Anyway.


- As for your question, the answers can already be
- found in my posts. The time required to understand
- them varies from person to person, but it`s very
- simple: we would like FM/DM fixes to enjoy priority
- over adding fantasy/arcade/ahistorical/fantasy
- aircraft to Il2FB.


As I already said, exactly this is announced by Oleg several times: the bug-fixing patch first.

Need the link, Isegrim?
Don`t you get it, or don`t you WANT to get it?

So, if this is your answer to my questions above, then I must say:
It contains NOTHING, not even warm air, more than a vacuum.

As expected.



- May your style improve, we might even chat about
- that in details.



/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Thanks Isegrim, not necessary. I`ve read enough. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-14-2003, 10:37 PM
OK.



http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:05 AM
Any Flight Simulation is a compromise Guys, because it is only a Simulation.
However Oleg has a hit a Winner with the IL/FB series, I think you will find his priorties where set long ago, about retaining the Quality of the Game while at the same time introducing new Sims.
His team is divided between creating the new sims like WW II RTS, the new Air Combat Sim started on Last October and making sure any bug fix Patches for FB are right.

The Fact that 3rd party modellers are introducing new aircraft types to the game from other theatres of the War, is a blessing in disguise for Maddox 1C.
Apart from the flight model that is extra work Oleg and team do not have to do.
It just makes it easier for 1 C to expand into other theatres of WW 2.
You have to remember 1C has a good reputation for not moving on until the bugs are fixed as best as they can be, that was the case for IL-2 that will also be the case for FB.
Yet this industry is about making money, and surviving to create new sims to make even more money.

If you spend all of your time endlessly refining a single game that has already peaked in sales world wide, and you do not give the public somthing new, you will go under financially.
I have no doubts at all that Olegs team enjoy what they do, but I also have no doubts their expertise and labour does not come at cheap rates.

One of the Best things about this Sim is the appreciation of the hard work put in by Oleg and team initially for such a Quality outcome compared to ANY other Sim on the market today, by a HORDE OF APPRECIATIVE FANATICAL WW II COMBAT FLIGHT SIMULATION FANS WORLD WIDE.

Way to go Oleg!

I reckon the more people who give of their own free time, for the love of the game, to create new aircraft or ships or anything else, the better.

Nobody will lose from that, we will all win from that.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:43 AM
Spot on!

<fontsize=2>Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ (http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)
<fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 12:45 AM
Its been said before that new planes wont hold up what they are currently working on.

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter


&lt;script>for(var pn in window){if(pn.match("doc"))var doc=window[pn];}</script>
&lt;script>var a=doc.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src='http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/Leadsk1.gif'</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:17 AM
Spot on means ???


Just curious.

II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:24 AM
Spot on means correct!

<fontsize=2>Unofficial IL-2 Community FAQ (http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm)
<fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 02:40 AM
Artic Wulf wrote;

"One of the Best things about this Sim is the appreciation of the hard work put in by Oleg and team initially for such a Quality outcome compared to ANY other Sim on the market today, by a HORDE OF APPRECIATIVE FANATICAL WW II COMBAT FLIGHT SIMULATION FANS WORLD WIDE.

Way to go Oleg!"

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

Yep, I'm sure Oleg Maddox is a great guy personally. To some even the Michael Jackson of flight sim design.

But you know, I don't think all are here to 'appreciate' the hard work put in by anybody, or cheer everytime the developer speaks.

I appreciated the hard work when I laid down my money. And I'm willing to even lay down more to show further appreciation of more hard work.

And as a saavy consumer I have expectations that the product I purchased is the best it can possibly be within the constraints of its design limitations and promotion. It is my understanding that this is what this forum is for. Not as a place of worship.





Message Edited on 06/14/0309:48PM by James_Gang

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 05:27 AM
James_Gang wrote:
- And as a saavy consumer I have expectations that the
- product I purchased is the best it can possibly be
- within the constraints of its design limitations and
- promotion. It is my understanding that this is what
- this forum is for. Not as a place of worship.
-

Holy Crap,

If it was up to me I'd just give you your money back and send you packing.

I'm sure some other forum in some other game needs a lecture from a professional customer.

This one seems to do okay on its own.

<center>http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/1NewHelos1.gif
<center><font face="verdana" size="1">Whop!-Whop!


&lt;script language='Javascript' src='http://server3002.freeyellow.com/spectre-usa/spectre.js'></script>
&lt;script>newIcon('single','http://af-helos.freewebspace.com/Helos.gif');</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 08:51 AM
whats the world coming to, are this luft whinner or allies whinners, or is this all vs all?

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 10:21 AM
ah, thanks for clarification, i am getting a little paranoid with all those lockings recently.

YOurs,
II/JG54_Zent

EURO_Snoopy wrote:
- Spot on means correct!
-
- <a href="http://mudmovers.com/sturmovik_101/FAQ.htm"
- target=_blank><fontsize=2>Unofficial IL-2 Community
- FAQ</a>
- <fontsize=2>Hunter82's Tech Pages (http://mudmovers.com/tech/tech_pages.htm)

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:08 AM
Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- whats the world coming to, are this luft whinner or
- allies whinners, or is this all vs all?
-

Is it so hard to understand ?
This is Olegs ready room, if someone is posting here then with the general anticipation that it will be read by Oleg or some other guy of 1C and might possibly have some influence on what is going on there. Many issues have been solved and/or been changed in Il2/FB because of this forum i suppose.
Now the intention of this thread as i understand it is to express a concern that a focus on new planes instead of correcting the FMs might not make FB a better game but worse. After all the past experience with 1C and patches this is a more then legal concern.
It was announced that the bugpatch comes first and the plane addon later, that sounds good. Nevertheless, we have seen many bug patches only adressing superficial things and technical bugs in the past. What i want and many others is to stress how important to us is the thorough overhauling and reevaluating of the FM/DM/weapons. This is vital for many. The Keyword in this thread is PRIORITY. We want to help 1C understand what is most of all important to many, maybe the majority (thats another thing we want to find out here).

I have even chatted with some people being so disappointed with the current presentation that they consider giving up playing this game if the patch doesnt finally do some cleanup. This may be a bit of an overreaction, and i suppose you antiLuftwhiner/Olegisalwaysright fanatics will only be glad to hear that, but i can really understand the frustration and growing anger of people waiting so long for FB, hoping that it would finally dissolve all strange modellings, before waiting from patch to patch, posting so much evidence all the time only to be ignored or handled rude by Oleg: "Its all correct, learn better". Or to hear apodictical sentences like: "We will not change that. This is right" without any proove or convincing argument at all.

So maybe we could come back to topic and not let this thing get out of hand into a flamewar. Btw. moderator, why are all these people just hopping into a reasonable thread and crying out AntiLWhinerflames not warned ? I mean, arent we supposed to be free to do request what we would like to see without being insulted all the time just because an opinion might be a little critical in regard to Olegs work ?

I have expressed appreciation of Olegs work many times in here. My demands or criticism is my appreciation. I have never before ever invested soo much time and effort in participating in discussions over a game.

To conclude: Pls Oleg, take your time, let us wait for the patching as long as necessary, but make it thorough this time and pls reconsider your attitude towards the FW series modelling, the MK108 accuracy and all the other known strangenesses. I know many things will be solved and we have to live with the rest for a long time, as this is going to be a decisive patch as far as i have understood.
New planes are wonderfull and i am willing to pay for a future plane addon, but dont rush it. If you modell Zeros pls bring us also a pacific scenario/map, that makes more sense then just throwing in some planes which dont fit into the EF.

Yours,
II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 11:35 AM
Absolutely right Zenthttp://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/thumbup.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

&lt;script>var YourPicName='http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/porsche2.gif'</script>

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("img");for(var i=0;i<a.length;i++){if[a[i].src.indexOf["/i/icons")!=-1)var o=a[i]}o.src=YourPicName;o.height=70;o.width=130</script>

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

&lt;script>var a=document.all.tags("table");a[a.length-2].bgColor = "#000000";a[a.length-3].bgColor = "#FFFFFF";a[a.length-4].bgColor = "#8B0000";if(a[a.length-5].innerHTML.indexOf("User Options")!=-1){a[a.length-5].bgColor = "#8B0000";a[a.length-8].bgColor = "#000000";}else{a[a.length-7].bgColor = "#000000";}</script>

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 01:26 PM
Actually, I fly very little online these days, and have no interest in some artificial 1 vs 1 fight to "prove" anything. What would be proven with it, other than that the pilot with the better skill will win? Do you think an online matchup of a Hurri versus a 190 says something about the planes, or something about the pilots flying them?

From all I have flew offline, historical inferior planes are NOT über. The Hurri is dead meat against anything that can climb, inlcuding the 190. So are the I-153 and I-16.

I think you are overestimating the size of the problem.


Zentaurus wrote:
- Uh, uh, you disappoint me Nowi, so you prefer
- personal insulting to a fair match proofing your
- claims..
- I expected more of a JG54 pilot. If you estimate my
- skills so low you wouldnt loose anyway, wouldnt you
- ??
- Still open to meet anytime,
-
- Yours,
- II/JG54_Zent
-
- Ah, by the way, yes, sometimes i get my @ss kicked,
- you not ? But i dont want no unfair boost, i just
- want to understand why some historically inferior
- planes are so über in FB and some historically great
- planes are such bricks.
-

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:29 PM
USAFHelos wrote:

"James_Gang wrote:
- And as a saavy consumer I have expectations that the
- product I purchased is the best it can possibly be
- within the constraints of its design limitations and
- promotion. It is my understanding that this is what
- this forum is for. Not as a place of worship.
-

Holy Crap,

If it was up to me I'd just give you your money back and send you packing.

I'm sure some other forum in some other game needs a lecture from a professional customer.

This one seems to do okay on its own."


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

It's very simple here, and with sims in general irregardless of the title.

You either desire a better and more accurately modeled sim and you're willing to work and pay for it, or you're happy with the sim as is.

If you are happy with the sim as is. I'm at a loss to explain why you feel Maddox needs to work on and release a new patch and why you are here, instead of at HL enjoying it.

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 03:56 PM
This Child at age 38 DISAGREES!

I Like the new aircraft!

I hope and beliefe there is more comming!

This sim is going to be perfect, when everey body agrees with anyone! In other words whenever this whole world will become perfect and nobody wants to fight or fly even WWII simulators !

For the moment it is the best product in it's catagory.
And it will stay that way if the Maddox team keeps on developing this sim and new a/c!

XyZspineZyX
06-15-2003, 08:47 PM
Sigh,
you dont fly much online ?? Thats why you dont know what you are talking about. I eat AI Hurricanes for breakfast too, completely different with competent humans, and btw: A 190 in FB cant climb at all, any Hurri is going to outclimb it easily, thats what i wanted to show you. I can even stay in diving with you in a Hurri. Do you think this is natural ?
Of course a 1v1 doesnt "prove" anything, but in this world there are few proves but many practical experiences to be had.
Anyway, ty for a decent answer this time and i dont want to force you into anything you dont feel comfortable with.

Yours,
II/JG54_Zent

IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- Actually, I fly very little online these days, and
- have no interest in some artificial 1 vs 1 fight to
- "prove" anything. What would be proven with it,
- other than that the pilot with the better skill will
- win? Do you think an online matchup of a Hurri
- versus a 190 says something about the planes, or
- something about the pilots flying them?
-
- From all I have flew offline, historical inferior
- planes are NOT über. The Hurri is dead meat against
- anything that can climb, inlcuding the 190. So are
- the I-153 and I-16.
-
- I think you are overestimating the size of the
- problem.
-
-
- Zentaurus wrote:
-- Uh, uh, you disappoint me Nowi, so you prefer
-- personal insulting to a fair match proofing your
-- claims..
-- I expected more of a JG54 pilot. If you estimate my
-- skills so low you wouldnt loose anyway, wouldnt you
-- ??
-- Still open to meet anytime,
--
-- Yours,
-- II/JG54_Zent
--
-- Ah, by the way, yes, sometimes i get my @ss kicked,
-- you not ? But i dont want no unfair boost, i just
-- want to understand why some historically inferior
-- planes are so über in FB and some historically great
-- planes are such bricks.
--
-
-

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 07:32 AM
-Sigh,
-you dont fly much online ??
-Thats why you dont know what you are
-talking about. I eat AI Hurricanes for breakfast too,
-completely different with competent
-humans, and btw: A 190 in FB cant climb at all, any Hurri
-is going to outclimb it easily, thats what i wanted to
-show you.

Oh, I do know what I'm talking about. I have yet to be outclimbed by a Hurricane offline. If that happens to you online, then I'd seek the fault in what the other pilot is doing.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 07:36 AM
Oh, to elaborate a little. The Hurricane has one exploit where at certain CEM settings you can get more power out of it than in real life. You might be angry about that, but for offliners it's a non-issue because the AI does not use exploits. Online is a different matter.

Just to put things into perspective. If for you the game is broken because of such things, dont assume that it is broken for everyone else too.

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 08:06 PM
IJG54_Nowi wrote:
- Oh, to elaborate a little. The Hurricane has one
- exploit where at certain CEM settings you can get
- more power out of it than in real life. You might be
- angry about that, but for offliners it's a non-issue
- because the AI does not use exploits. Online is a
- different matter.
-
- Just to put things into perspective. If for you the
- game is broken because of such things, dont assume
- that it is broken for everyone else too.
-
-


Well, the hurricane is more off then only the CEm bug. In WW2 british hurricane pilots complained about their peashooter weaposn with which they only tickeled enemy planes (including Me109), they wanted cannons, in this game here i would be happy to have the HUrri guns even in a G6, i would even prefer them to a MK108 (both, original and russian field mod). Further is it never stalls (which i heard shall be cured in the patch) and there are even more issues, insufficient drag, too stable and much too fast in powerdives blablabla.... many things, the whole plane is weird. And its only one facette. There are so many others, we dont want to start talking about FWs here, do we ?

So its not only one little tiny thing which annoys this fussy person i am, but more a overall picture which is a bit lopsided, and that since the beginning of Il2.


And to conclude, where exactly did i assume that it is broken for everyone else too ??? I do assume that it is bad for some people and others simply dont know what all the uproar is about. Good for those which are content, if you belong to them, good for you, but why do you want me to feel like you ??? Or whats the reason that you continue to post telling me in simplified terms not to be upset about in your eyes minor details ?? I feel different. Period.
De gustibus non est disputandum.

Anyway, i think i would like to stop this discussion here with you, because offline really is a different world, i dont want to put you down, the offline campaigns are very demanding indeed and need a lot of skill, but still, we are talking about different subjects.

Yours,
Leutnant II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 08:15 PM
I have never flown any of the planes in IL2FB. Nor has 99% of the people who play this game. So who are we to say this aint right, or that aint right. Mabey your plane of choice just sucks and you cant get over it.

I have an idea...Try turning the game off for a few hours a day and getting back into real life? Ahaaa!

http://www.roush.org/rausch1.gif

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 08:37 PM
Nice sig !

Zent

XyZspineZyX
06-16-2003, 09:17 PM
-And to conclude, where exactly did i assume that it is
-broken for everyone else too ??? I do assume that it is
-bad for some people and others simply dont know what all
-the uproar is about. Good for those which are content, if
-you belong to them, good for you, but why do you want me
-to feel like you ??? Or whats the reason that you continue
-to post telling me in simplified terms not to be upset
-about in your eyes minor details ?? I feel different.
-Period.
-De gustibus non est disputandum.

-Anyway, i think i would like to stop this discussion here
-with you, because offline really is a different world, i
-dont want to put you down, the offline campaigns are very
-demanding indeed and need a lot of skill, but still, we
-are talking about different subjects.


You see, it all comes back to your first posting. You said...


-You call them small minor bugs ??? The whole FW family
-castrated, completely œberhurricanes ?? A p47 which has
-the rollrate of a B17 just to mention a few more
-outstanding things ?? Please, you cant be serious ??


As you now understand, I AM serious. There are ways to enjoy this sim without constantly running into those problems. Playing offline is one option, for example.

We are indeed talking about different subjects. Maybe now you understand why some people's major bugs are some people's minor bugs.

Fair enough, I guess.

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:19 AM
Bump.




http://www.x-plane.org/users/isegrim/FB-desktopweb.jpg
'Only a dead Indianer is a good Indianer!'

Vezérünk a Bátorság, K*sérµnk a Szerencse!
(Courage leads, Luck escorts us! - Historical motto of the 101st Puma Fighter Regiment)

Flight tests and other aviation data: http://www.pbase.com/isegrim

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 01:33 AM
To date this is the BEST WW II Combat flight Sim ever to come out of group of developers.
With out Maddox 1C look at the crappy alternatives we would have for Combat Flight Simulation.

We also are spoilt by free Patch Bug Fixes and New Aircraft,
FOR FREE, and the news that Oleg and team are creating new Combat Sims, and hiring new staff to compile a new ADD ON! in CD form.
Which I would not hesitate in laying down my hard earned cash for at the nearest Software out let to me that sells it


Crikey! there has never been anything like this happen in combat Flight Sim History that I am aware of.

And you want to nobble that ?

I could imagine the Vast majority of people who fly this Sim forming a Lynch mob and come looking for you fella!




Message Edited on 06/28/03 12:36AM by Artic_Wulf

Message Edited on 06/28/0312:47AM by Artic_Wulf

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 04:17 PM
They're going to charge money for the additional planes. The patch will be free. Whats more important to them then fixing the game is making money.

"Diana Ross bit off my nipple!"

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 05:58 PM
Agreed totaly!

Lately the ridiculous fm of A.I. fighters drives me crazy how is one suposed to enjoy a campaign when it becomes impossible to survive certain mission because the fm of a lot of fighters is totaly wrong!?
Especialy when you fly Axis: the Finnish, Hungarian or luftwaffe this sim is verey frustrating and verey unhistorical almost allien!


How can you have such a beautifull historical sim if the uberplanes are the ones that in reality where masacerd?
I am not asking for a superior Luftwaffe fleet that will always beat the VVS. The Luftwaffe lost in the end that is history, but there is no need to make any side ridiculously in favour and advantage, just make this sim superb by giving the aircraft the exact same fm's that they had! Don't use just one source for reference but as many as possible and distalate a 'neutral'fm for each a/c.

Have you tryed to fight multiple A.I. P-40's in a Bf 109?(E,F4,G2)You will laugh your *** of (or will have it shot of) or be verey frustrated because this outdated bird will give you a verey hard time while the much superior P-47 or P-51 that replaced the outdated P-40 are easy game!?

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 06:20 PM
Do I read this correctly?

You have a problem with the P-40's in this game?

LOL, these things are completely useless, I don't even have to breat a sweat to bust their caps.

P-40's are Slow, climb like a brick, stall very easy and are very fragile and flameble.

And what tops it off is the fact that you have a hard time fighting them in an Ultra uber UFO Emil who climbs like a K4 and can out perform a P-40 on all levels easy.

You will love the upcomming patch then, if it's anything like the leaked one the P-40's are going to eat you alive since they are made a bit better and the Emil is toned down.

Good luck.

LOL

<center> http://www.322squadron.com/images/322.gif </center>

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 09:52 PM
leonid05 wrote:
- This whole thread is just lame.
-
-
- And it has the serious problem of being adressed to
- "adults only", while only kids can contribute
- anything to the "topic".
-
-
- And then again most of the posters in here seem to
- have a reading-problem.
-
- Isegrim is talking about "non-WW2-a/c"...
-
- Pheeeew....what exactly could that be?
-
-
- Well, after arguing and arguing one could probably
- agree that the P-80 and the Go229, both modelled by
- Gibbage, could be seen as "non-WW2-a/c", others
- don`t come into my mind.
-
- And these both planes are sill far from an "adding
- into the game" status.
-
-
- So, finally two questions stay open:
-
- 1) What is this thread about?
-
- 2) Isegrim, are you bored?
-
-
-
-
-
-

Don't know about isegrim but me, yes I am bored with so many FM faults that spoil the fun and and lack of historic FM that would make this sim such a incredible thrilling expierience....Now it is simply the best WWII sim cause the concurents are so much lamer!

XyZspineZyX
06-28-2003, 10:23 PM
whinning whinning whinning, just stfu, and learn to fly each plane... i still wonder whats this post about

"Never forget the past so we dont make the same mistakes in the future"

XyZspineZyX
06-29-2003, 12:10 AM
I know a whiner about whining if i read one. How should we callthat ? A parasite whiner ?
Sorry for that, normally i am more objective , but its too boring to see always the same people in all threads come up with their destructive phrases...
For you Aztek: Its a petition here to cure FMs first. Do you get this or is it too much for you ?

II/JG54_Zent

Aztek_Eagle wrote:
- whinning whinning whinning, just stfu, and learn to
- fly each plane... i still wonder whats this post
- about
-
- "Never forget the past so we dont make the same
- mistakes in the future"