PDA

View Full Version : Dissapointed with patch? If so why?



XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 09:52 AM
Hello all,

I started this thread beacause I am downright unhappy with the flight model and the damage model as they currently stand in this screwed up abomination ( a bit harsh??, lol ) of a patch we called 1.1 .

Flight model wise and damage model wise, things are out of proportion to each other. The BF109 has been Castrated. It can't climb like it should and it can't dive like it should either. What can it do now? What does it do well now? Hmmmm, I think basically nothing besides being able to carry a Mk-108 on later marks. Don't get me wrong, It can be effective. However it's when you look at the VVS planes and they seem to have every advantage, you say hey, how did so many Germans become aces in this thing on the eastern front. I read alot of aviation history and I especially love all the first person accounts. The 109 we have now is not the 109 I have read about, not at least in relation to its adversaries. The VVS 20mm cannons hit like 20mm cannons should. I mean one burst and u sever tails and wings off 109's. The other way around, I am landing 5-12 20mm hits on Lagg's, LA's and P-39's with no effect. I get VVS planes emmiting dense black smoke and they fly on like nothing happened, and still push the envelope as far as max speed and acceleration is concerned. I know the VVS 20MM Shvak was superior to the MG151, but come on????? When I read in books about Laggs bursting into flames and loosing wings at the first burst of 20MM cannon fire from 109's, I wonder. ..
Why aren't the weapons balanced well with each other? How come 4 .50 calibre Mg's in the B-239 hit harder than 4 in the P-39Q-1? Most VVS planes are just taking too much damage. Especially the P-39. The engine mounted in the rear fueselage most be very vulnerable to all calibres of bullets and we know cannons. I Pump the tail section of P39's full of rounds and they pour smoke, but no engine performance degradation,No speed drop off!!!!. Theres not any extra room in an engine compartment to be absorbing bullets. Some things will get severed, punctured, damaged, etc. that could cause a loss of manifold pressure,a fire, or some mechanical failure and hence speed. I don't see this happening.

The View from the cockpit of the 190 is so off from what it shoud be. Anyone who looks at the evidence that has been presented here on the forums and to Oleg should find it conclusive that the perspective is not proper and the armor glass lower bar is far to big. I also believe the Revi is too small and that is contributing to the loss in downward degrees of vision. Why are the German aircraft so screwed? Those should have been the easiest to perfect. It's only two planes for gods sake!! The VVS has about at least 50 if you include variants.

Does everythign need to get rebuilt from the ground up to fix it?

I really hope not. Because when you try to add more onto a flawed structure, you just end up accelerating its collapse.......

So there's my rant. I am just a lil upset right now. After really spending time withh 1.1 patch, I am just upset. Things aren't equitable. I have a ton of fun in VVS planes and become frustrated when i go German. I know FB is the best out and I am appreciative of all the hard work by the dev team. I just hope that FB doesn't get worse and fall short of the mark of excellence it should hold.

If you feel like me, post. I care to read your feelings about FB.

Don't flame me. I just offer my opinion. Nobody made you read them!!! lol

Kalo





Message Edited on 09/06/0308:57AM by kalo456

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 09:52 AM
Hello all,

I started this thread beacause I am downright unhappy with the flight model and the damage model as they currently stand in this screwed up abomination ( a bit harsh??, lol ) of a patch we called 1.1 .

Flight model wise and damage model wise, things are out of proportion to each other. The BF109 has been Castrated. It can't climb like it should and it can't dive like it should either. What can it do now? What does it do well now? Hmmmm, I think basically nothing besides being able to carry a Mk-108 on later marks. Don't get me wrong, It can be effective. However it's when you look at the VVS planes and they seem to have every advantage, you say hey, how did so many Germans become aces in this thing on the eastern front. I read alot of aviation history and I especially love all the first person accounts. The 109 we have now is not the 109 I have read about, not at least in relation to its adversaries. The VVS 20mm cannons hit like 20mm cannons should. I mean one burst and u sever tails and wings off 109's. The other way around, I am landing 5-12 20mm hits on Lagg's, LA's and P-39's with no effect. I get VVS planes emmiting dense black smoke and they fly on like nothing happened, and still push the envelope as far as max speed and acceleration is concerned. I know the VVS 20MM Shvak was superior to the MG151, but come on????? When I read in books about Laggs bursting into flames and loosing wings at the first burst of 20MM cannon fire from 109's, I wonder. ..
Why aren't the weapons balanced well with each other? How come 4 .50 calibre Mg's in the B-239 hit harder than 4 in the P-39Q-1? Most VVS planes are just taking too much damage. Especially the P-39. The engine mounted in the rear fueselage most be very vulnerable to all calibres of bullets and we know cannons. I Pump the tail section of P39's full of rounds and they pour smoke, but no engine performance degradation,No speed drop off!!!!. Theres not any extra room in an engine compartment to be absorbing bullets. Some things will get severed, punctured, damaged, etc. that could cause a loss of manifold pressure,a fire, or some mechanical failure and hence speed. I don't see this happening.

The View from the cockpit of the 190 is so off from what it shoud be. Anyone who looks at the evidence that has been presented here on the forums and to Oleg should find it conclusive that the perspective is not proper and the armor glass lower bar is far to big. I also believe the Revi is too small and that is contributing to the loss in downward degrees of vision. Why are the German aircraft so screwed? Those should have been the easiest to perfect. It's only two planes for gods sake!! The VVS has about at least 50 if you include variants.

Does everythign need to get rebuilt from the ground up to fix it?

I really hope not. Because when you try to add more onto a flawed structure, you just end up accelerating its collapse.......

So there's my rant. I am just a lil upset right now. After really spending time withh 1.1 patch, I am just upset. Things aren't equitable. I have a ton of fun in VVS planes and become frustrated when i go German. I know FB is the best out and I am appreciative of all the hard work by the dev team. I just hope that FB doesn't get worse and fall short of the mark of excellence it should hold.

If you feel like me, post. I care to read your feelings about FB.

Don't flame me. I just offer my opinion. Nobody made you read them!!! lol

Kalo





Message Edited on 09/06/0308:57AM by kalo456

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:01 AM
I agree with that ,I can help but think the guys over at M$ are rubbing there hands together and laughing.

No1RAAF_Pourshot


http://members.optusnet.com.au/~andycarroll68/CAC-15.jpg

CAC CA-15 Kangaroo

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 10:03 AM
Kalo,

I agree with your post. It seems to me with every waking moment though, that the dev is listening to us in some way. I will tell you why. Look at all the patches that have come out. In CFS1 and CFS2 there were no patches meaning the Microsoft Development team wasnt listening to consumers on what should be included. They only went off the words of people who actually they consulted for the project.

Ubi seems to be listening to us. I have seen many thing that were improved in the last patch. Ive noticed for instance that the TB-3 has bigger props and more power. I recall a thread on these boards in Olegs Ready room about this. The thing here is Ubi Made a mistake, we all make mistakes on release of a patch. We are all human.

I know when it comes to consumer driven products such as this no one is an expert on anything here. Ubi takes our thoughts and opinions to heart because I know so. Ive see many posts out there get answered and get implemented.

I feel Ubi is getting overwhelmed by the many requests we have for them and they are going as fast as they can to implement the ideas we have. Look for example: The new Aircraft addon slated to be comming out by Xmas supposedly, there were many requests for the P-51 and the B-17 as well as numerous aircraft.

Il-2 was originally a Russian front type of game. There were never really any addons for it. Now that UBI has a Huge customer base for this game, they see more ideas and more input from us flight simmers. I personally have suggested a Pacific Theater because I love the Pacific Theater.

So it all boils down to what they can do physically and the number of requests they have for certain things. I think UbiSof and Maddox Games are more receptive to the consumer not like Microsoft is. You have to give them a lot of credit. They do listen to us.

S! Viper


<table style="filter:glow[color=red, strength=3"><tr><td> <font color=white>Viper
Commanding Officer VMF-513
"Chance Favors The Prepared Mind"
</font></td></tr></table>

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 11:15 AM
Totaly agree i am so hacked off with the way this game is going at moment, i use this game to fly only luftwaffe planes especialy 109 which is my favourite but it is now portrayed as some joke. Luftwaffe planes seem to constantly have their flight managements altered but always seem to be undermodeled in some way whereas vvs planes always perform as should or overperform especialy turn rates of 15 secs for la7 etc.
Oleg should stop trying to rewrite history trying to make people think that every nations ac except russian sucked.

Surely everyone regardless of nationality deserves to be able to fly a fairly acurate historic representation of their fav AC after shelling out their hard earned cash for this game.....

XyZspineZyX
09-06-2003, 06:16 PM
Well thx for the posts everybody.

I think after an evening of playin FB and testing some things out I just needed to vent.
I have been reading lots of other posts that share my concern about how each patch changes things around in proportion to each other. It seems as though there is no medium; get a good 190, get a broke 109..... Get a decent Jug, get horrible 20mm MG151's.....

Now I do see some things being fixed, but why does that have to be at the expense of breaking things that were already satisfactory or spot-on?

This is like a seesaw, we go up and down but never stay level.

Dev team, why don't you fix the 109 and FW-190 first? It's only 2 planes. Get those right and then don't touch them again. Move onto the many VVS flight models that have issues (Rocket climbing P39's). At the same time a flight model is fixed the corresponding damage model should be fixed. Go 3 or 4 planes at a time, and in no time everything will be performing close to as it was. Now what is happening is that too much is trying to be doe at once, and something is always broken in the process of fixing another. Things need to be set in proportion again, and it's going to take individual focus on certain aircraft to do it, not wholesale changes that break as much as they fix.

Fix a plane, test it's peerformance vs. existing data, tweak it. Shoot it up with every weapon, get the damage model to feel right (mind u it could never mimic all the possible variation of real life, but do a good approximation). Once you finish that plane, LEAVE IT ALONE!!
Move to the next aircraft. Take the methodical approach. How is it that the user community seems much more willing to test flight parameters out than the developers? Maybe UBI should hire some of the hard core contributors here as testers. I am sure we would not have let the K slip through with no rudders http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

This rushing to fix everything at once in one big patch may just lead to always missing or messing up individual components. Dev team, how about every week you focus and fix 2 aircraft? Do testing comparison and then issue final version of flight/damage model. Release that in a micro patch. Start on the most popular planes first and work down. That would be sure to fix the problems. Be methodical because surely you have not been yet.....

I do see progress in certain areas and input from user community being used in correcting some issues. I think that you are trying, but just not quite going about it in the right way.....

My 50cents


Kalo

Tully__
09-06-2003, 06:19 PM
Didn't Wags start a thread called "Post FB 1.1 Bugs Here" for just these sorts of comments /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center> ================================================== ========================= </center>

<center> <img src=http://members.optusnet.com.au/tully_78th/Corsair.jpg> </center>

<center> The "under performing planes" thread (http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=35;t=007540) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </center>
<center> Forum Terms of Use (http://www.ubi.com/US/Info/TermsOfUse.htm) </center>
<center><font size="-2" color="#88aadd">IL2 Forums Moderator</font></center>


Salut
Tully