PDA

View Full Version : An introductory guide to posting in ORR.



ImpStarDuece
06-24-2005, 09:02 PM
Well, it finally had to happen. The armchair experts and whiners finally cracked my normally calm composure. Sometime last night the sheer, overwhelming, mindnumbing consistency of the badly written, poorly worded and horribly structured whines got to me.

Reading a lot of the 'stalls and spins are wrong' 'climbing is wrong' 'beta .4 was/is better' 'Ubi/Oleg/1C have bastardized/neutered/arcaded/runined the game because of money/bias/stupidity' topics that popped up I realised something quite odd. Some of the whiners actually believe what they are writing. No matter how many players/mods/simmers try to convince them otherswise, they have their line of thought and they plan on sticking to it.

That's fine by me, I can deal with other opinions. The only thing that I ask is that when you do make a post is to make it clear, intelligible, even handed and logical. As 90% of the whines and legitimate complaints seems to fall outside this category I have decided to create a basic template on how to post your complaints:

********************* ****************** **************************


The Completely Unofficial (and completely half-arsed) ORR Complaint Form.

1)To the 1C;Maddox Games development team.

I currently own and play a copy of

a) Pacific Fighters standalone
b) Il2/PF Merged install

2)I am a

a) Pilot, Private/Commercial
b) Pilot, Warbird
c) Aeronautic Engineer
d) Software Engineer
e) Professional Aviation/WW2 Historian
f) Amature Aviation/WW2 Historial
g) Physicist/ other Engineer
h) Interested simulation(s) player
i) Normal/Average Game player (thank you 73GIAP_Milan)

3) While playing version ( ) of your simulator I believe that I have found the following error/innacuracy/oversight/problem/issue:

a) Historical inncauracy
b) Damage model inaccuracy (General)
c) Damage model inaccuracy (Specific)
d) Weapon model inaccuracy (General)
e) Weapon model inaccuracy (Specific)
f) Flight model inaccuracy (General)
g) Flight model inaccuracy (Specific)
h) Physics model inaccuracy
i) Graphics model inaccuracy
j) Other inaccurracy

4) To support my case/theory/observation/reasoning I have extensively tested the following planes/aspects of the game/modelling/graphics and found these following problems;

Detailed description of the percieved innacuracy, including but not limited to
a) A clear and concise description of the tests used to determine the inaccuracy,
b) Screenshots,
c) .trk files/ .ntrk files

5) So that you can repeat these tests/ observations I used the following criteria on all tests.

Description of test criteria including, but not limited to,

a) Planes (s) used in test
b) Loadout (Fuel, ammunition)
c) Map
d) Time of day
e) Map condtions
f) Hardware set up
g) Graphic drivers

*** Please note that the following are the accepted criteria for FM testing: Crimea map, midday, 25% fuel and 100% fuel (thanks Hoarmurath), default loadout, all tests conducted over the sea ***

6) My historical physical/ logical evidence shows that your simulation is incorrect because it differs in the following ways from my evidence:

Provide clear and thorough evidence of where the inaccuracy arises and differes from historical or real norms. Limited, but not exclusive to,

a) Primary source material (Historical flight/weapons testing, flight manuals, pilot manuals or other)
b) Secondary published material (published works, reliable internet sources)
c) Other materials
d) Basic physics proof.

8) Compare/contrast simulation to evidence provided.

9) Summarise cogent points

10) Propose any changes/alteration that need to be made to make the simulation better fit real/historical norms, finish report in appropriate way

Respectfully,
(your name here)

************************************* ************************* **********************************

This will be edited as suggestions come in. Please give me feed back, it all helps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-24-2005, 09:02 PM
Well, it finally had to happen. The armchair experts and whiners finally cracked my normally calm composure. Sometime last night the sheer, overwhelming, mindnumbing consistency of the badly written, poorly worded and horribly structured whines got to me.

Reading a lot of the 'stalls and spins are wrong' 'climbing is wrong' 'beta .4 was/is better' 'Ubi/Oleg/1C have bastardized/neutered/arcaded/runined the game because of money/bias/stupidity' topics that popped up I realised something quite odd. Some of the whiners actually believe what they are writing. No matter how many players/mods/simmers try to convince them otherswise, they have their line of thought and they plan on sticking to it.

That's fine by me, I can deal with other opinions. The only thing that I ask is that when you do make a post is to make it clear, intelligible, even handed and logical. As 90% of the whines and legitimate complaints seems to fall outside this category I have decided to create a basic template on how to post your complaints:

********************* ****************** **************************


The Completely Unofficial (and completely half-arsed) ORR Complaint Form.

1)To the 1C;Maddox Games development team.

I currently own and play a copy of

a) Pacific Fighters standalone
b) Il2/PF Merged install

2)I am a

a) Pilot, Private/Commercial
b) Pilot, Warbird
c) Aeronautic Engineer
d) Software Engineer
e) Professional Aviation/WW2 Historian
f) Amature Aviation/WW2 Historial
g) Physicist/ other Engineer
h) Interested simulation(s) player
i) Normal/Average Game player (thank you 73GIAP_Milan)

3) While playing version ( ) of your simulator I believe that I have found the following error/innacuracy/oversight/problem/issue:

a) Historical inncauracy
b) Damage model inaccuracy (General)
c) Damage model inaccuracy (Specific)
d) Weapon model inaccuracy (General)
e) Weapon model inaccuracy (Specific)
f) Flight model inaccuracy (General)
g) Flight model inaccuracy (Specific)
h) Physics model inaccuracy
i) Graphics model inaccuracy
j) Other inaccurracy

4) To support my case/theory/observation/reasoning I have extensively tested the following planes/aspects of the game/modelling/graphics and found these following problems;

Detailed description of the percieved innacuracy, including but not limited to
a) A clear and concise description of the tests used to determine the inaccuracy,
b) Screenshots,
c) .trk files/ .ntrk files

5) So that you can repeat these tests/ observations I used the following criteria on all tests.

Description of test criteria including, but not limited to,

a) Planes (s) used in test
b) Loadout (Fuel, ammunition)
c) Map
d) Time of day
e) Map condtions
f) Hardware set up
g) Graphic drivers

*** Please note that the following are the accepted criteria for FM testing: Crimea map, midday, 25% fuel and 100% fuel (thanks Hoarmurath), default loadout, all tests conducted over the sea ***

6) My historical physical/ logical evidence shows that your simulation is incorrect because it differs in the following ways from my evidence:

Provide clear and thorough evidence of where the inaccuracy arises and differes from historical or real norms. Limited, but not exclusive to,

a) Primary source material (Historical flight/weapons testing, flight manuals, pilot manuals or other)
b) Secondary published material (published works, reliable internet sources)
c) Other materials
d) Basic physics proof.

8) Compare/contrast simulation to evidence provided.

9) Summarise cogent points

10) Propose any changes/alteration that need to be made to make the simulation better fit real/historical norms, finish report in appropriate way

Respectfully,
(your name here)

************************************* ************************* **********************************

This will be edited as suggestions come in. Please give me feed back, it all helps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

FritzGryphon
06-24-2005, 09:54 PM
Bump!

Hoarmurath
06-24-2005, 09:56 PM
Just one point, if you want the rsults of your tests to be consistent with real life ones, you need to use 100% fuel, not 25%. Real life tests were done with planes at full combat weight (this include full fuel tanks).

FritzGryphon
06-24-2005, 10:12 PM
And use Crimea map at noon.

Edit: You already said that. Which goes to show, you should always read the earlier posts in a discussion before making your own.

new-fherathras
06-25-2005, 08:47 AM
this should be a sticky

Takata_
06-25-2005, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The armchair experts and whiners finally cracked my normally calm composure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- where are the tracks and DeviceLink datas detailing your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Sometime last night the sheer, overwhelming, mindnumbing consistency of the whiners got to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- "last night" but whilch time zone? have you got a chart describing your claim?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Reading a lot of ... some of the ... actually believe what they are writing ... No matter how many ... try to cinvince them otherswise, they have their line of thought and they plan on sticking to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Great but, who are "they, their, them"? have you got proof they have been tested first on Crimean map at noon with 100% fuel?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
That's fine by me, I can deal with other opinions... bla... bla... bla... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- When you are posting, please use the "basic template" for ORRs' whiners.

Takata

crazyivan1970
06-25-2005, 09:24 AM
LOL, good one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

73GIAP_Milan
06-25-2005, 12:53 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif great one!

"2)I am a

a) Pilot, Private/Commercial
b) Pilot, Warbird
c) Aeronautic Engineer
d) Software Engineer
e) Professional Aviation/WW2 Historian
f) Amature Aviation/WW2 Historial
g) Physicist/ other Engineer
h) Interested game player"

I would add; "i) Normal game player" to this aswell.
As lots of guys i've seen on the old il2, just bought the game, not knowing what it exactly was, convinced they had the latest Air-Quake/CFS in their hands http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AusDerReihe
06-25-2005, 12:59 PM
this is a very good suggestion imo. should definatley be a sticky.

although Takata_'s reply IS funny, it is also the very reason serious posts fades out into nothing. it is quite amusing to observe the fact that whining breeds whining. what would have happened if the author of this thread hadn't started his post by explaining why he writes what he does, but instead just wrote something like "I have a suggestion on how to make complaints/suggestions more structured and understandable, and reduce back-and-forth posting due to lack of information/facts"? maybe it would have stopped peolpe from just HAVING to write something funny because the start of this thread can be interpreted as a whine in the first place.

if you whine, you WILL get whines in return, and the repliers will fail to see their own whine. people are generally more concerned about telling you to stop whining/whine about your whinig, than to actually try and reduce it. whine threads very often get more attention due to this.

i'm not saying that people shouldn't write funny things, as a good laugh is always good, as long as it doesn't make anyone feel stupid.

someone will probably tell me that i should stop whining, and that i'm contradicting myself here, or falling in the vary trap i describe, but if they do they will instantly be a part of the problem, NOT the solution. it is impossible to address this issue without being called a whiner, but it's not because i whine, it's because of the nature of the internet and the people using it. an evil circle.

ImpStarDeuce, again, a very good and serious thread you've started.

SeaFireLIV
06-25-2005, 03:01 PM
Sticky it!

joeap
06-25-2005, 03:06 PM
Well done ImpStarDuece. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

F19_Ob
06-25-2005, 03:52 PM
Badly ritten or not, it's a better idea to post a suspect error to the bugreport or in the messageboard in ORR than to post it in an agitated thread in general discussion.
This way your issue is on top in the thread instead of page 14 where it likely wont be discovered at all.

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

Old_Canuck
06-25-2005, 04:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
Well done ImpStarDuece. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Nice work, ImpStarDuece. If only this guide were followed. I see it's already generating some bug reports but no doubt you'll be patching it soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif Unfortunately, the path of pseudo-intellectualism is so much easier to follow and offers more instant gratification than your guide. Having read this forum for a few years, I do have a sincere appreciation for those who have taken the time to present detailed research and bug reports. Our favorite sim is all the better for their efforts IMHO 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.

HelSqnProtos
06-25-2005, 11:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Takata_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
The armchair experts and whiners finally cracked my normally calm composure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- where are the tracks and DeviceLink datas detailing your point?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Sometime last night the sheer, overwhelming, mindnumbing consistency of the whiners got to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- "last night" but whilch time zone? have you got a chart describing your claim?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
Reading a lot of ... some of the ... actually believe what they are writing ... No matter how many ... try to cinvince them otherswise, they have their line of thought and they plan on sticking to it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- Great but, who are "they, their, them"? have you got proof they have been tested first on Crimean map at noon with 100% fuel?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
That's fine by me, I can deal with other opinions... bla... bla... bla... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
- When you are posting, please use the "basic template" for ORRs' whiners.

Takata </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I love it --- The bollocks splashers get a taste of their own. Nicely done Takata!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif</span>

ImpStarDuece
06-26-2005, 12:37 AM
Hmmm, HelenSqnProtos, maybe my posting seems to have hit a little close to the mark for you. What do you think? MAybe I have touched a nerve?

Perhaps I should bring up Exhibit A; your 'fix the ShVak' thread and Exhibit B; your 'Bf 109s, Laggs, La5s and Yak serise FM, GM' thread.

Both are prefect examples of the "I feel" "they seem" "I think" school of thought that result in 2 or more pages of solid arguing before some reasonable person decides to step in and provide something other then mere conjecture. The initial posts were completely devoid of anything but you observing something that you felt/though/belived was wrong and posting about it, without seeking to make sure that your opinion was correct and valid.

I am a hard proof person, it's just an essential part of my personality. I did several years of maths and science at university before switching to history to finish my degree. Both disciplines require proof first and conjecture second. If you want to convince me of your beliefs, that's fine. But I need evidence. I'm a distrustful soul, I'm not going to take you at your word. Whenever I see subjective posing and personally motivated complaining I want to throw my hands up in the air in dismay!.

Post what you like, but do it within a proper framework. Otherwise valid points get lost in a mess of flames and half-truths.

If you want a good example of how to do it properly, look at Gibbages 190 FM thread. Tracks, screenshots, very little conjecture. Everyone saw instantly that there was a problem and there was general agreement, mostly because of the weight of evidence provided.

HelSqnProtos
06-26-2005, 11:15 AM
Your comments shall never even come close to touching a nerve imp for one reason and one reason alone. As far as I know your not a competitive player. YOUR A FORUM ACE.

I could care less what degrees you posess. I have several techinical ones myself, so what?? I most definetly am NOT interested in posting guidelines or what constitutes a good post in your opinion. I have a newsflash for you forum ace, if you don't like the post, don't follow it. You act like your the self appointed gaurdian of ORR.

Far as I know that is CrazyIvans job.

So if you don't like what people post, easy, go to the GD forum where your I am a knowledgeable forum ace routine will fly. I actually fly. Online, Competitively. Against some of the best pilots in this game. Try it. Join a Squad, do something constructive instead of trying to make yourself look big by trying to bring others down.

Get in the game girlfriend otherwise, stfu,

ORR is not your personal domain.

73GIAP_Milan
06-26-2005, 01:24 PM
AUTCH !

that is what i call: adding some spice to the mix..

oh well, anyway, let's keep it friendly here guys, you both have a point here, but still no reason to ban this thread to the realm of burning trashcans..

I find it good (aswell as funny) that Impstarduece wants to make a point that the complaints in ORR are sometimes quite over the top, but you guys should not start picking out on eachother because a slight difference in opinion..
Even if others have funny replies regarding the topic, imho that keeps the fun in this business..

so, go back to your corners, take a valium and no hard feelings http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AviationArtist
06-26-2005, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">....do something constructive instead of trying to make yourself look big by trying to bring others down.

Get in the game girlfriend otherwise, stfu,
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the irony! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

F_vonIzabelin
06-26-2005, 03:07 PM
great list, we will start using it right now, finally some fanboy helped us get systematic and clear, maybe now they will understand something (or maybe still nothttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-26-2005, 05:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HelSqnProtos:
Your comments shall never even come close to touching a nerve imp for one reason and one reason alone. As far as I know your not a competitive player. YOUR A FORUM ACE.

I could care less what degrees you posess. I have several techinical ones myself, so what?? I most definetly am NOT interested in posting guidelines or what constitutes a good post in your opinion. I have a newsflash for you forum ace, if you don't like the post, don't follow it. You act like your the self appointed gaurdian of ORR.

Far as I know that is CrazyIvans job.

So if you don't like what people post, easy, go to the GD forum where your I am a knowledgeable forum ace routine will fly. I actually fly. Online, Competitively. Against some of the best pilots in this game. Try it. Join a Squad, do something constructive instead of trying to make yourself look big by trying to bring others down.

Get in the game girlfriend otherwise, stfu,

ORR is not your personal domain. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



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

Interesting point of view; if I'm not a competitive, online play who is in a squadron, my opinion doesn't count. If however, I go online and solely fly against 'the best pilots in the game' my opinion does however. Nicely dogmatic.

Does that mean that all the offline pilots are not entitled to an opinon? Similarly, those who fly online without squads or just out of their love of aviation, should 'get in the game'. Or those pilots who like to pick and mix all aspects of the game?

I didn't want to push things in people face. I just wanted to let people know that there is possibly a better way of doing things. There is a way to avoid the flame fests.

ORR has turned into the 'lets discuss FM/DM/GM issues to improve the game', which is a great theory. Unfortunately is still as vulnerable as GD to conjecture. So I decided that something a little more methodical and thorough might possibly be a better approach. Something where we try and deal with hard data, evidence and steer away from some of the more 'passionate' arguments.

Funnily enough I do fly online, or did until a few weeks ago as my joystick recently packed it in. I flew with VF19 for 6 months, under the handle 'VF19 Jabberwock'. A very nice bunch of guys with some outstanding pilots. I found however that I enjoy offline play just as much as online play however; the variety and immersion is superior in my opinion.

I was trying to bring something constructive to the table; a theoretical 'model post' for a complaint in ORR. Why did I do it? Because I could, all I want is the best game possible and I saw a way of improving the reporting process for errors. I wanted to suggest to others that there was a better way of doing things, and though I had an answer that would help. Notice that I didn't get personal, poked a little fun at myself and generally didn't take thing too seriously.

All I want is for people to test their thoeries befor they post in ORR. Because C) they can then back themselves up B) it saves others from doing the testing and C) it causes less flames.

Still what I'm trying to do appears to have been miscommunicated to some and my opinion is obviously unimportant to some, so i'll just quietly update the list with any thoughts/suggestions.

Thanks all who do support the idea though.

Kocur_
06-27-2005, 11:23 AM
Well done ImpStarDuece! Great improvement in methodology it would be.
I understand you would insist that replies by members of "belivers party" in threads started by members of "questioners party" would be in the same form, right? Well, that would be a major improvement in level of discussions. Until now "belivers'" posts are usually nothing more than "whining again! you all are stupid, shut up."
For the purpose of exercise and example i ask you to post your personal opinion on, lets say:"supposed possibility of making a sustained
turn at maximum elevator deflection in slats equipped planes without entering accelerated stall at any speed above speed of static stall in 4.01m",in form you created, please. For: how an educated man like you could have no opinion at all? I hope you see no reasons for not supporting opinions, that discussed matters of FM, DM and so on, are actually correct if compared to reality, in form of your creation ofcourse? I assume you will not post anything in so called "whinning threads" any other way than in form you created.
Note: some of threads you mentioned were not in ORR. To be more exact: more than none was. So dont go there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (You will anyway, so:in introduction you mentioned threads out of ORR, thus, with will to do so, or not, you applied following form to all, so called "whining threads")
"Notice that I didn't get personal", well you mentioned no names, but i guess in most languages, phrases and statements like:"whiners","mindnumbing consistency of the badly written, poorly worded and horribly structured whines","I realised something quite
odd.Some of the whiners actually believe what they are writing." could be found offensive. Clearly a suggestion that those people are intelectually and mentally inferior to you. Do you have any legitmate reasons to put yourself in this position of intelectual superiority? "poked a little fun at myself and generally didn't take thing too seriously." - i.e. self-irony? Really? I didnt notice that at all in the introducion. Too late for that. (And no: i didnt feel insultedhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)
However i find this exercise in methodology interesting itselt, and possibly very helpful if used by both sides of discussions, your "product" had lousy PR at the begginig. I am affraid that in terms of prakseology it will be a failure.
Having stated above let me enter the fun: i suggest: adding "1) c: beta0x", removing "2)" as the rest should speak for itself. That personal profile might be misguiding: for example in "how to design a bolt of a small-calibre firearm" thread, post by "hobbyst", in that particular case a lawyer by education, the "2)"could lead to discreditation of the post. And in that particular case it would be very bad for the form http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.
Sorry for my lousy english. Not my mothers-tongue you see.