There are No Sour Grapes here... Just a natural response to FCs blunt we will switch losing all three Axis in the FW to a PK. Lame response and shows very little respect for those that are aware of the problems.

I really doubt there are 1000s of people pulling DTs time at the moment. This is a very tiny community. There is a reason why some of them are in here looking at comments and responding.

In terms of the 38 you can look at the earlier posts and I'm glad some testing was done. At least it shows a willingness to look at issues that were raised some time ago and were blown off. I doubt we will see anything change per the norm even with documentation.

You might want to go back an read what I said because what you think I'm asking for from DT is quite the opposite.

The biggest issue back in the day was syncing and hitting power. Hitting Power IMO is there. I can easily Dewing a FW if given a good profile and I hit at convergence so they hit plenty hard. Its matter of looking at the dispersion issue. It was noted in that 36 page thread on UBI that for what ever reason the 50s had one of the largest patters in the game. That includes all other MGs. Has it been corrected? The only thing that thankfully has been done is the desyncing of the weapons.

Hmm I guess I'm not the only one that knows this problem along with a zillion other FW drivers over the years. I will put together a track then maybe just maybe it will get looked at.

What a bunch of arrogant and disrespectfull MF-ing whiners!!!!
S... the F.... up!!!!

:grin: you can't use us, be sure, but you can research and document problems."I'm right because I've been flying this sim from demo days" is not valid argument, if that is only backup people have than their request will be ignored.

We don't have any hidden agenda, our agenda is clear and transparent, we are making best possible sim out of Il2 engine, we don't work for money, we don't have to care about the balance and we don't have to care about red and blue side. Historical accuracy is the only thing that matters.

If you honestly check this thread you can see that we are dealing with issues that are proven beyond the doubt like compressibility and mach limits.

What we don't want to do is to make changes based on popular myths.

Polite and serious questions will get serious and polite response, I will not waste my free time on political correctness and whiners who can't backup their claims with facts.

Most talked doesn't equal real, some of the most talked things are pure myths.

Talkin' about agenda :), same thing we can say about FW190 or any other plane in game, there are always people who can't accept reality.

There is nothing in game code that would make FW190 any different than other planes with self sealing tanks, if you don't believe LesniHU and me than take a look at game code yourself or find somebody who you trust and ask him to check code. If you find an error I'll correct it.

Perceived difference is more likely caused with the fact that FW is extremely tough plane which will fly long enough for big fuel leak to happen. You will not get it that often in Bf109 simply because you will be blown out of the sky after first burst.

Here are few screenshots with P-51D losing all fuel too. You can see that I rotated wing 90deg to make it easier to hit fuel tank, in normal wing position it is way easier to cut off whole wing than to hit tank strong enough to produce big fuel leak.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/357/79586554.th.jpghttp://img89.imageshack.us/img89/9648/70813376.th.jpghttp://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8037/13234481.th.jpg

I guarantee you that every plane with self sealing tanks behave the same, main difference is that some carry more fuel so it takes more time for whole fuel to leak.

Finally somebody who understand that there is no any practical difference between losing all three controls and losing elevator and ailerons.

More dangerous with 100%, more forgiving with low fuel. Nothing "uber" just slightly different and more interesting to fly.

FC

FC99 don't put words in my mouth please.

I think developers should be more kind and carefully on their answers for these expected requests/complaints. We are (at least i am) learning/reading very useful infos here. Regards...

I can see why Oleg stopped interacting with people on forums.

I totally respect his decision to do that.

Without him, our options are limited severely for quality WWII sims in the future.

I patiently await this patch and the next sim.

Can we please drop the insults? I thought there were mostly adults here. :???:

i thought that trading 3 control axies for PK was quite teh funneh :D


about the fuel leak bug:

i do remember that 190s (and P47s), after one patch, would catch fire VERY easily
after an outcry, the easy-fire stopped after the next patch..funny thing was, the "fuel leak bug" appeared then, as light puffy cloud at engine area trailing light smoke...IMO, as a "feelings experten", this was the same fire from before but cosmetically changed from fire to smoke to appease/fool the whiners

the really funny thing was, i found, that 2 patches later, the exact same thing could happen to (at least) all the other US types, F4Us, P47, P51, P38

in any event, it is what it is, i dont see why any type with seal-sealing tanks could not suffer catastrophic failure and lose all fuel in short order IRL...its annoying, but live with it, and set your glide hdg towards home



about TD looking into CoG issues with P51 (or any other type for that matter), AFAIK, il2 does not model separate fuel tanks in P51, hence there is no real problem in that regards?