PDA

View Full Version : HERE'S An ORIGINAL IDEA



uncle_crapper
08-13-2006, 11:28 PM
Stop tweaking the plane capabilities to suit the whiners.

Tweak the global flight model instead of the individual plane parameters to balance the game. That is, enter all flight model charateristics as specified by the manufacturers' specifications and historical characteristics... and end the favoritism.

If the plane was superior... let it stand... don't revise history based on the fansy of some airquake dummy. Online sucks thank to tweaking parameters based on the desires of the few committed vocal harpies that only watch movies and never read history books.

Your duty, Oleg... is to be non-committed to any given side and let the "simulation" run it's course based on the charateristics that actually exsisted... so that you "SIMULATE" REALITY... not desire or some alternate reality fantasy.

How many times will the whole basis for this game's mechanics change from IL2 to now? Stop fixing charateristics... fix the bugs and enhance your flight physics.

PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS AND LET THE PLANE'S REAL DESIGN DYNAMICS SHAPE THE VIRTUAL WAR.

I have been a loyal fan... playing this game for 5 years... it's a different game every patch (SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO ONLINE).

WHY IS EVERY SERVER LOADED WITH UFO SPITFIRES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?

Your are a genius OLEG... but don't let the whining players make you compromise the intergrity of your creation.

Thank You for allowing me to vent.

IIJG69_Kartofe
08-14-2006, 01:54 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Stop thinking "game" and start "simulation" instead.

Promise, you will see the world of IL2 alot "pink" and less dark.

Even oleg will be more pink. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

joeap
08-14-2006, 03:50 AM
7 posts since November 2004? Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

triggerhappyfin
08-14-2006, 04:03 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
7 posts since November 2004? Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

OOH NO!....The guy's got a life?

EJGrOst_Caspar
08-14-2006, 06:27 AM
Often the most quiet ones have better things to say than the screaming ones. No matter what numbers tell.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 07:00 AM
On the major versions, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, there have been whole levels added to the modelling
and flight engine. But to wait the time for every plane to be changed, checked, corrected, etc,
up to the new level is so much more than the majority is willing to sit still for that -- well
we get numbers of patches before different models are remade to the new standard. Like I-16 DM
was also I-16 3D model just as many older planes took longer or still are not up to the new ones
we get. So people who can't wait go boo hoo and try to make issues beyond what is only taking
time and for some planes may never be done. How many of the community members who made the
original models are still able and willing to make all the changes as fast as "everyone" wants?
If the changes only came out when all the planes models were complete, the 3D, the FM, every
tiny detail worked out, then we might be at the AEP level by now... maybe.

This is not to say the original post is not a good idea. Just to say that things are the way
they are for reasons including time and money and talents, not because of fiat of the makers.

I could go to the Louvre and start picking at details in the paintings there. They are not as
perfect as color photos would have been. Surely some shadows are "wrong" and how many places
can I find where an artist has not painted parts to the same detail level as another part?
But that would be insane as well as very ignorant and rude. And we have little trolls who
post almost daily just such insanity, ignorance and rudeness. The new justification is that
they have their "opinion". First comes the statement and then the protective IMO that is
no way to soften how wrong the sim is, that anyone who disagrees is a "bad name" with maybe
a "stupid picture" because their "opinions" are stated for their purposes as strongly as
"facts".
And never ever should the opinion let alone the judgement of the makers be respected as equal
to the opinion of a whiner who makes nothing, except noise. How much I would love to go and
**** the work of these trolls except that whatever they do if anything is surely nothing they
care much about anyway, nothing to respect or perhaps these jokes who post would understand
respect for the work of others.

joeap
08-14-2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
7 posts since November 2004? Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

OOH NO!....The guy's got a life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I HAVE A LIFE, I HAVE FRIENDS AND WORK I'M AT WORK NOW...OH SHI% http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Oh and Caspar, just a question, WHO'S SHOUTING! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-14-2006, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
7 posts since November 2004? Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

OOH NO!....The guy's got a life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep...even another one on these forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

WB_Outlaw
08-14-2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by uncle_crapper:
Tweak the global flight model instead of the individual plane parameters to balance the game. That is, enter all flight model charateristics as specified by the manufacturers' specifications and historical characteristics... and end the favoritism.

Before whining about the sim and telling the sim developer (and an aero. engineer in this case) how to produce their product, why don't you learn a little about how it works. Better yet, since you obviously already know how it works and how easy it is to "end favoritism", why don't you do it and we'll all buy your product?


--Outlaw

sudoku1941
08-14-2006, 10:30 AM
Ummmm... I think that has been Oleg's approach, and that's why plane capabilities have been so, er, fluid.

But, it appears the base FM needs more than just tweaks, because you just don't get "earth physics". Acceleration, energy bleed continue to be big sore points.

At some point, however, the design team did start to listen to baseless whining, and since they hardly ever explain any of their changes or post their data sources or targets... well, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what is going on. Some of the changes were made to hit some target number (even though that target is never specified), others more due to national or plane-specific blocs of players. IMO, Oleg should never have gone this route at all. It's one thing to listen when somebody has stacks of credible information and test documents, quite another to listen to a bunch of people saying "I should be able to outturn a 109 in my P47 on the deck!!" this is where he should at least say, "Here's the number I'm aiming at, here's the source of that number, and look: our plane hits that number; end of story". Nobody can argue that. That's how it should be done.

Instead, we get no info to go on, cryptic and useless little messages like, "Adjusted 109 turn rate" in the patch Read Me's, {Adjusted how? better, worse? By how much? And according to what source?}

Then, when players who actually have good info sources clearly document problems, they don't get the consideration of even being shown an alternative data source. How can you debate a point when only one side can see all the data?

That's the problem with a tightly-controlled flight model with little real exchange of information between the dev team and the players: since Oleg won't ever reveal his sources, and usually not even the target numbers, he can't be pinned down on anything, right OR wrong. "Is correct, be sure" wears thin the very first time you hear it.

Chuck_Older
08-14-2006, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by uncle_crapper:
Stop tweaking the plane capabilities to suit the whiners.

Tweak the global flight model instead of the individual plane parameters to balance the game. That is, enter all flight model charateristics as specified by the manufacturers' specifications and historical characteristics... and end the favoritism.

If the plane was superior... let it stand... don't revise history based on the fansy of some airquake dummy. Online sucks thank to tweaking parameters based on the desires of the few committed vocal harpies that only watch movies and never read history books.

Your duty, Oleg... is to be non-committed to any given side and let the "simulation" run it's course based on the charateristics that actually exsisted... so that you "SIMULATE" REALITY... not desire or some alternate reality fantasy.

How many times will the whole basis for this game's mechanics change from IL2 to now? Stop fixing charateristics... fix the bugs and enhance your flight physics.

PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS AND LET THE PLANE'S REAL DESIGN DYNAMICS SHAPE THE VIRTUAL WAR.

I have been a loyal fan... playing this game for 5 years... it's a different game every patch (SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO ONLINE).

WHY IS EVERY SERVER LOADED WITH UFO SPITFIRES OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN?

Your are a genius OLEG... but don't let the whining players make you compromise the intergrity of your creation.

Thank You for allowing me to vent.

Not a very original idea actually. You have some points to be sure...I think Oleg's pretty smart, but a genius? And duty...uh, on the German forums Oleg's accused of hating "Blue" and on the Russian forums, he's accused of hating "Red". Personally I think he errs on the side of caution and dependably repeatable results- which some people construe to mean that I feel his FM data is reliably accurate, which is not what I said at all. I think he knows his code and recognises when changes can cause problems, and makes workarounds for the minefields he spots. Let's not forget how the sim is pushed to the extremes of it's envelope. Doesn't mean the data is wrong, doesn't mean it's right, it means the sim interprets it a certain way- whether or not it's right or wrong. Oleg chooses the safe depeandable way for that interpretation in my opinion- and sometimes the sim may suffer for that. But probably not as much as if he went the other route. That's my two cents, that and $3.98 will buy you a beer

VW-IceFire
08-14-2006, 05:23 PM
I'm sure if it were that easy it would have been done. But its not...he's not using table based flight models. He doesn't plug in some basic numbers and out comes a Corsair. Its a bit more involved than that with various flight calcuations, power to weight ratios, centers of gravity and the like. Its not perfect because its trying simulate the real world physics in something that is stripped down for consumer PC's.

This is the simple approach to fixing the game. I believe the other way is better...instead of going backwards to table based FM's...go forwards and make even more complex calculations in a completely new model so as to ensure a greater correlation between real world performance and in-game simulator results. Its coming...it just takes more CPU power.

Oh and for servers crammed with Spitfires...if a server was the real war and real pilots were walking down the flight line looking for a plane that might give them the best chance. The plane with good speed, turn, climb, and firepower in near equal measure and looks good too...that'd be the one to take. Its an easy plane to fly...it was in reality...and it is in the simulation. The fact that the Spitfire is so overused in this game speaks to how GOOD the simulation is...not to how badly something is perceived to be modeled.

MB80
08-14-2006, 06:28 PM
The fact that the Spitfire is so overused in this game speaks to how GOOD the simulation is

It just shows how much people play this game who don't want to train hard for success. They could also play an arcade sim if they think "I take the easiest to fly plane, because it's the best and I wanna have alot of kills".

The spit is boring to fly, you've nothing much to do while flying.. that's why I don't like this plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

...Let us wait for Olegs Spit in BOB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

uncle_crapper
08-14-2006, 07:03 PM
Some pretty good conversation going on this.

Allow me to fuel the flames with this Top German / British/ American WW2 Ace kill comparison chart I put together.

http://members.cox.net/uncle_crapper/ace_comparison.gif

Do these number's seem to speak to plane handling charateristics you all experience on line?

I realize there are tour of duty differences involved.. but seriously... does anyone notice a pattern?

Anyway, as one contributor noticed... I don't post often, just when I feel there is an issue the developer should be aware of... hopefully OLEG will actually read this thread... though I doubt it.

I couldn't stay quiet any longer, thank you all for your consideration.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by MB80:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The fact that the Spitfire is so overused in this game speaks to how GOOD the simulation is

It just shows how much people play this game who don't want to train hard for success. They could also play an arcade sim if they think "I take the easiest to fly plane, because it's the best and I wanna have alot of kills".

The spit is boring to fly, you've nothing much to do while flying.. that's why I don't like this plane. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

...Let us wait for Olegs Spit in BOB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Players who train hard don't take the Spits because they are not fast enough.

The funny part is when players who don't train hard take an FW-190D-9 for speed and then
go blowing their E in hard maneuvers and squawk when it doesn't work. That's funny!
If you have to turn more than 30 degrees in less than very far then pass the target and
come back after turning far away and zoomed up till the speed you lose is minor, where
you won't be a sitting duck. Turn in the vertical using roll. Coming here and crying
about bleed in highspeed turns is just showing how much you don't know.

You can't match a Spit in radius and angle when you have 200+ kph speed advantage without
you bleeding badly for every degree on angle. You have to pull more G's in a plane that has
higher wingloading and lower power to weight. Of course the target will seem to have no
bleed since he is already bleeding out at his sustained rate that his thrust will supply.
Duuuhhhhh-uhhhh! Why the surprise? The term is ENERGY FOR ANGLES and it applies to Energy
Fighters moving much faster than their targets. Go after only what is in front of you, no
more than 30 degrees. If it ain't then work your path around slowly and carefully.

Getting greedy while E-fighting is a huge, stupid mistake. Better you fly the Spit.

WWMaxGunz
08-14-2006, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by uncle_crapper:
Some pretty good conversation going on this.

Allow me to fuel the flames with this Top German / British/ American WW2 Ace kill comparison chart I put together.

http://members.cox.net/uncle_crapper/ace_comparison.gif

Do these number's seem to speak to plane handling charateristics you all experience on line?

I realize there are tour of duty differences involved.. but seriously... does anyone notice a pattern?

Anyway, as one contributor noticed... I don't post often, just when I feel there is an issue the developer should be aware of... hopefully OLEG will actually read this thread... though I doubt it.

I couldn't stay quiet any longer, thank you all for your consideration.

Those numbers speak for over a dozen factors you don't mention, all more important than what
you seem to think they point out. That "issue" has been discussed to death long before IL2
was ever made as well as since. It is not quite as shallow as "who won the war", just close.

DuxCorvan
08-15-2006, 02:26 AM
Pretty sure Hatmann had rather have only 20 kills and be at home for Xmas. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Monty_Thrud
08-15-2006, 06:14 AM
5 out of 10 - mediocre fishing trip...must try harder, i doubt you'll get but the most gullible http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Bearcat99
08-15-2006, 07:30 AM
The comments I have read in these forums since 2002 make me appreciate the fact that the FMs and DMs of this sim are locked even more every time I come here.

People talk about realism.... but actually in real life you didnt see Yaks fighting Spits....or 109s fighting 190s..... or Mustangs fighting Las etc...... Some of us go into these servers that arent historically correct and expect.....

While I understand where you are coming from and I certainly have issues with some of the FMs in here.... it is what it is.... and to me the fact that I have to take a plane.. even one with what I consider questionable FMs .... and learn to handle it better... which is a constant process from where I sit.... everytime I think I have it down.... something else happens .... is priceless testimony to the greatness of the sim...

Just my 2 cents...

and I also think that kill statistics say less about the aircraft than they do about the pilot and the circummstances of his service..... If Allied pilots had been fighting as long as the Axis ones had aginst similar aircraft..(If I am not mistaken in the beginning of the GPW the Axix aircraft was superior to what the Russians had ..) perhaps thier numbers would be similar... Not to ake anything away from the German greats....

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 08:54 AM
When the US first fought the Germans in North Africa, the fighters were put under control
of the ground commanders and pieced out. Many fighters spread out and told when and where
to go as 'ground escort'. And they got wiped from the sky as the LW would concentrate
forces at the attack. Be sure that the victories were counted.
So the fighter leaders got together, pushed for and got a seperate Fighter Command that was
not chained to the ground commanders at all. All the losses for USAAF went wayyyyy down.

So much for kill counts. Doctrine and training, supply and repair, weather, objectives
and happenstance of who is where and what must be done mean far more than turning circle.

But then for agenda-pushers there is no such thing as unreasonable unless someone says
it applies to them.

There is a whole game division out of work at Microsloth since CFS series was ended.
Tell me there's no one from there who posts asking for what would destroy the only series
that keeps CFS from making a comeback to mediocrity. It is to be expected.

LEBillfish
08-15-2006, 10:31 AM
Just like they say about grades in school....."If you're getting all straight A's you're not taking tough enough classes". Funny how when you see outrageous kill counts how most often a significant number of their opponents were either under-planed, or under-experienced.

Now don't get me wrong, there are a select few natural ace's that seem to make happen for whatever reason that which few others can. Yet that number is very few, and I doubt you'll find many using their trusty Sopwith Camel against Bf-109-G6's.....

Isn't that right Snoopy?
http://avanimation.avsupport.com/gif/Snoopy.gif

uncle_crapper
08-15-2006, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Ummmm... I think that has been Oleg's approach, and that's why plane capabilities have been so, er, fluid.

But, it appears the base FM needs more than just tweaks, because you just don't get "earth physics". Acceleration, energy bleed continue to be big sore points.

At some point, however, the design team did start to listen to baseless whining, and since they hardly ever explain any of their changes or post their data sources or targets... well, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what is going on. Some of the changes were made to hit some target number (even though that target is never specified), others more due to national or plane-specific blocs of players. IMO, Oleg should never have gone this route at all. It's one thing to listen when somebody has stacks of credible information and test documents, quite another to listen to a bunch of people saying "I should be able to outturn a 109 in my P47 on the deck!!" this is where he should at least say, "Here's the number I'm aiming at, here's the source of that number, and look: our plane hits that number; end of story". Nobody can argue that. That's how it should be done.

Instead, we get no info to go on, cryptic and useless little messages like, "Adjusted 109 turn rate" in the patch Read Me's, {Adjusted how? better, worse? By how much? And according to what source?}

Then, when players who actually have good info sources clearly document problems, they don't get the consideration of even being shown an alternative data source. How can you debate a point when only one side can see all the data?

That's the problem with a tightly-controlled flight model with little real exchange of information between the dev team and the players: since Oleg won't ever reveal his sources, and usually not even the target numbers, he can't be pinned down on anything, right OR wrong. "Is correct, be sure" wears thin the very first time you hear it.

REALLY... THIS IS THE ONLY GUY WHO UNDERSTOOD WHAT I WAS SAYING...

In fact, he probably said it better than I originally did.

Sadly, my posting of the kill stats took the conversation in another direction... the same direction as all other threads around this topic.

So all the whopla and whining about skill... (and I actually am a fairly decent player having played consistently for 3 years) Is horse **** because...

***WE CAN'T COMPARE THE CODED SPECIFICATIONS OF THE PLANES TO THE KNOWN MANUFACTURED SPECIFICATIONS***

We have to trust OLEG's vagueries and subjective opinion as to what is correct... AND THAT HAS CHANGED MULTIPLE TIMES DURING THE LIFE OF THE SIMULATION.

Climb rate and energy rentention should be quantifiable and verifyable by displaying the code's simulated values.

Otherwise, all the talk about what IS, WAS, and SHOULD BE is baseless and prejudiced to a given player's plane/national preference.

Does everybody respectfully understand that concept???

This is OLEG's version of WW2... and I want the numbers in the form of plane characteristics to understand the exact scope of this world... he just won't show us... and it REALLY upsets me DARNIT! (Tissues Please)

Thank you all for your feedback (the well thought and the thoughtless)...

I wish I was more precise to begin with.

Best Regards,

Beleil
08-15-2006, 07:56 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

sudoku1941
08-15-2006, 08:09 PM
+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

This is really one of the core issues.

You can't resolve ANY issue when you don't know what numbers and sources Oleg is using.

Take his word for it? No. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.

Put the numbers and attributed sources on the table and let the chips fall where they may.

It's historical record, right? Nothing to hide, right? What's the big problem?

NonWonderDog
08-15-2006, 08:32 PM
You do realize, of course, that "top speed," "energy retention," "climb rate," and suchlike values are not used in the simulation at all?

Values for IL2 flight models are more along the lines of "wing area," "aspect ratio," "fuselage drag coefficient," "airfoil lift coefficient," "oswald efficiency factor," "aileron lift coefficient," "aileron area," "center of gravity," "max torque," "propeller reduction gear ratio," "internal engine inertia," "propeller radius," "propeller moment of inertia," "torque v. RPM curve," "propeller efficiency v. advance ratio curve," etc. ect. ad nauseum.

ALMOST NONE of those values can be found online. MANY of those values are not public information, even. A GOOD DEAL of those values don't exist in any records anymore (if they ever did) and have to be computed beforehand with whatever windtunnel program Oleg uses.

It's a lot more complicated than just "make it hit the numbers." Physics based flight models will NEVER hit all the numbers. The sad truth is that no flight model is complicated enough to hit all the numbers no matter what the accuracy of the base parameters. If you spend too much time trying to hit the numbers you end up with basic parameters that are NOTHING like the actual plane. It might have the right turn rate and climb rate, but as soon as you stall it it might do three backflips and jump to the moon.

What IL2 is about, what it has always been about, is capturing the feeling of flying WWII warbirds. Whatever you do to them, they behave realistically. This has come at the cost of perfect performance figures, but I really don't give a rat's ***.

sudoku1941
08-15-2006, 08:41 PM
This is understood, NonWonderdog; but those hard-to-pin-down values all are the result of the other listed values being correct. Targetware uses many of the selfsame values, data categories and, of course, physics calculations. I mean, they're based on the same physical phenomena, right? The same engines and airframes, and airfoils, right?

So, how come if I do a 180 degree break turn and the other plane keeps going straight and level in the opposite direction at a decent rate of speed... how come in IL-2, I'll catch him and blast him inside of 30 seconds (or less)... but in Targetware, predictably, unless my plane has a LOT faster top speed at that altitude, I will have some trouble catching up. At the very least, it'll be a slow creep instead of a hyperwarp directly into the saddle?

One reason why this is so off in IL-2 is, if you look real close at tracks you record, you'll see planes pivot in place on their CoG. AI does it, human planes do it too (albeit less frequently). That doesn't happen in Targetware, thus you don't get caught from behind like that (unless, as I said, the chase plane really is that much faster at level speed at that alt anyway).

Just one example.

So, no, they don't always behave realistically. Lots of little things are "off" far enough to end up being pretty badly skewed in the end. That, and a couple of visuals issues are the reason why time-tested tactics don't work with the same degree of predictability as in real life. I'm talking about boom 'n zoom here; I'm talking about attacking bombers; i'm talking about seeing aircraft from an alt advantage and picking and choosing targets, rather than having to dive down amongst them and blow your E advantage just to have a chance to see the lower aircraft. I'm talking about engine cooling and overheating behavior (and the pilot workload required to manage it).

WWMaxGunz
08-15-2006, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
Values for IL2 flight models are more along the lines of "wing area," "aspect ratio," "fuselage drag coefficient," "airfoil lift coefficient," "oswald efficiency factor," "aileron lift coefficient," "aileron area," "center of gravity," "max torque," "propeller reduction gear ratio," "internal engine inertia," "propeller radius," "propeller moment of inertia," "torque v. RPM curve," "propeller efficiency v. advance ratio curve," etc. ect. ad nauseum.

I really expect that many of those are merged factors in merged equations to cut on process
cycle time. Figure how many planes we get running at the same time plus what we have seen
posted about simplified equations.


ALMOST NONE of those values can be found online. MANY of those values are not public information, even. A GOOD DEAL of those values don't exist in any records anymore (if they ever did) and have to be computed beforehand with whatever windtunnel program Oleg uses.

It's a lot more complicated than just "make it hit the numbers." Physics based flight models will NEVER hit all the numbers. The sad truth is that no flight model is complicated enough to hit all the numbers no matter what the accuracy of the base parameters. If you spend too much time trying to hit the numbers you end up with basic parameters that are NOTHING like the actual plane. It might have the right turn rate and climb rate, but as soon as you stall it it might do three backflips and jump to the moon.

There you hit on what the combat simming community at least has been calling 'cracks in the FM'
for over 10 years. You take a 'natural' FM that runs to as-known data and then start stretching
both data and equations to get the always-demanded and always-expanding list of data points and
what happens is that the FM gets what we call cracks in it that are often exploitable but also
often destroy whole areas of the flight with the feel being one of the first. Red Baron went
from 2 to 3D and came out with some LULU's. The only way it would meet numbers at all was at
full power. Gliding went from somewhat realistic to WTF is that? Depending on the plane there
is exploits and dud spots. The worst part to me is that the pre-release beta was far better
in many ways -- they got the worst out and the feel was good and then it went "Gold" with FM
that was cracked badly. Trouble is that the older version patched has no MMP server so we were
stuck with those FM's for years until the SWWISA finally hacked enough for minor fixes.


What IL2 is about, what it has always been about, is capturing the feeling of flying WWII warbirds. Whatever you do to them, they behave realistically. This has come at the cost of perfect performance figures, but I really don't give a rat's ***.

This is what I see. And every major new version; 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0 have introduced more new
flight behaviours regardless of the completeness of every model on release or even patch to patch.
AEP was not complete until 2.04, PF not until 3.04 and what we have now pre-BoB is from all the
info I've seen Oleg posted not finished form FM until at least 4.06 or 4.07 and all models as
much as they will be until the final addon. If true then judging the FM without at least the
one where the handling changes are is premature spouting.

carguy_
08-24-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by joeap:
7 posts since November 2004? Hmmm http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

OOH NO!....The guy's got a life? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO

orkan_3d
08-24-2006, 07:14 PM
ROFLMAO ???????????????

Please guys, be kind to strangers, what the **** the ROFLMAO stands for ????

VW-IceFire
08-24-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by orkan_3d:
ROFLMAO ???????????????

Please guys, be kind to strangers, what the **** the ROFLMAO stands for ????
ROFLMAO is a commonly used internet term.

It generally stands for "roll on the floor laughing my *** off". Its used alongside LOL (lots of laughs or laughing out loud) and ROFLOL (rolling on the floor laughing out loud).

orkan_3d
08-24-2006, 07:44 PM
Thanks IceFire, my Web culture is updated!

JamesBlonde888
08-25-2006, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by IIJG69_Kartofe:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

Stop thinking "game" and start "simulation" instead.

Promise, you will see the world of IL2 alot "pink" and less dark.

Even oleg will be more pink. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Even the pic in the campaign screen!!?