Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataros
This is what they did. If you think your research results are different from the devs' ones you have a great opportunity to let them know using the bugtracker to post data, graphs, test videos, etc. Otherwise they may never find out their research was not correct.
As we know they fired some guys who failed to deliver a perfect sim in 2011. New guys probably are fixing only those things which they are aware of and which have enough evidence supporting them because the devs are extremely pressed for time with the sequel by the publishers including UBI. They are a small team and can not afford paying testers for thorough flight tests and research. If we do not tell them something is wrong they will never know it is wrong.
If we want to help there is a bugtracker to post all relevant proofs, graphs and figures. Just a tool to have all data in one place because the devs do not have time to read many forum threads.
|
So what you are saying is that, even though the research was wrong and the team knows the earlier team delivered a flawed product which needs across the board revision, its up to us to do the analysis (with no tools)? What kind of development team relies only on a community bugtracker?
I realise that this is not the fault of the present team, and that they are being pushed in other directions, but I want to voice my DEEP displeasure at whoever is ultimately responsible for this mess (not the dev team) for releasing a flawed product and refusing to allocate the resources needed to fix it. Sims are not the most popular games but this is surely the best way to kill them altogether.
Having been made aware very early of the flaws in their FM's, it's the publishers/devs responsibility to check each FM, make sure it conforms to the historical data, including correct engine parameters, and to deliver a TIMELY patch to correct such serious deficiencies. Most of the FM's HAVE been raised on the bugtracker anyway. Fixing them does not mean restraining yourself to the issue raised on that bugtracker though. If the research shows they are not using the proper fuel and not performing like the period aircraft, it doesnt matter whether the fix includes things (like 87/100 octane boost issues) that are not on the bugtracker. They are not here to respond solely to a bugtracker (that is only an aid).
And anyway, if what you said was true, and only the Spit Ia was on the bugtracker, then the devs would not be changing almost every plane's FM. Either the data used is correct, or it is not!
Quote:
Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos
To all those following the development of the 87 vs XXX octane fuel (XXX= fill in the number as per your discretion), JG52Uther posted a very interesting screenshot on another thread:
 |
It sounds like that quote is talking about loadouts and selecting fuels to use, not whether the plane FM's will be changed to the proper fuel.
Having said that, correcting incorrect engine performance and fuel grade is not a 'feature' it's a research cockup. It is not something for a sequel!
I mean, what exactly are we simulating here? A hypothetical battle of britain where the RAF used inferior fuel instead and likely lost the war? Why the hell are we simulating that?