Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[gonk]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

Good day everyone!


Finally, we need to mention the launcher.exe crashes. This was a very hard issue to address as it wasn't caused by a single 100% reproducible bug, but rather rare combinations of various uncommon events. The work described above, coupled with a huge volume of general bug-fixing performed, should have at least minimized the number of instances that lead to crashes. We haven't encountered one in months, but determining whether that'll be the case for the general player base will be one of the leading goals for this beta test.

So you have had improvement for CTD for months ? thx for sharing...

Originally Posted by Atreides

I really hope the CTD issue in multiplayer has been fixed with this patch. That has been the biggest problem of this game IMHO.

Looks like after months it is still not 100%.. what happened to all the people who said don't release it until it is 100%?? lose your patience ? This should of been released in smaller patches months ago. Watch the fur fly when the beta is released...and still no su-26 that was mentioned as a flyable plane right at the start...

[Mango]

Man, I thought my programming job was hard!! The subtlties and obscure factors they deal with when tweaking the flight model must be maddening!

Thanks BS, for such a detailed updated. I'm really getting excited about this again.

[retrojet]

is there a fix for the whining divots that bug the hell out of us

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times. Everybody lets their SA drop now and then, and team tactics will always trump 1v1 skills.

Very true.

I guess my initial post on this whole subject is really just part of my occasional 'vent' based on frustrations that sometimes come out of piloting the inferior planes.

I made my choice to fly red. I'll keep doing so. Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a big more exciting for everyone.

I'm hoping with the improved stability the patch will provide that more suitable online missions can be created that give both sides equal chances to win the mission. The simulator stuff may not be fair to both sides, but the gaming side stuff should be.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

team tactics will always trump 1v1 skills.

I heard that.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I made my choice to fly red. I'll keep doing so. Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a bit more exciting for everyone.

I heard that too, but I'll reserve judgement until after the patch......

[major_setback]

Thanks B6, thanks Luthier, thanks to all the development team and the testers.
God bless you all!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

Who knows, with a slightly improved I/Ia and an allowable IIa, the dogfighting might get a big more exciting for everyone.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

I'm hoping with the improved stability the patch will provide that more suitable online missions can be created that give both sides equal chances to win the mission.

Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

The simulator stuff may not be fair to both sides, but the gaming side stuff should be.

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

Indeed.



Yes on public servers I suppose that fine.

Regarding the sim not fair/ game fair thing:

The simulation aspects of the game should be as close to reality as they can get them. So 109 / Spit / Hurricane / damage model, etc etc. Get all that stuff functioning as close as possible to real, regardless of which 'side' the details favour.

But the GAME aspect. Like, "Score 500 points to win the map!" stuff. THAT stuff should DEFINITELY be tuned to make the chances of winning equal to both sides.

If Luftwaffe fighters have the advantage in dogfighting (on average taking into account mistakes or a lapse in SA, etc.), or by a margin as you put it, then having a mission that is "First to 50 kills!" isn't exactly a fair gameplay target for both sides.

I don't really know how exactly I'd tweak missions to suit this kind of simulation / game issue, but I'd certainly make an attempt.

If a mission's objective is just to present a Battle of Britain scenario, ala Campaigns and the like, then this kind of thing isn't really necessary. Whatever happens happens.

But in a win/lose setup mission with points and targets and objectives and things, why not make an attempt to give both sides the same chances?

I don't think anyone can really seriously argue that the objectives and mission points systems in missions like the ones on ATAG are meant to be serious 'simulations' of action during the Battle of Britain. They're meant to be fun objectives to provide purpose to the action that might otherwise just be dogfighting.

If Red's strength is in taking on bombers, then give Red's target more emphasis on that. Vice versa, if Blue's strength is on air superiority fighting and bombing targets, make those the objectives for Blue. So for example:

RED OBJECTIVES: Destroy 50 bombers
BLUE OBJECTIVES: Destroy 25 ground targets and 25 fighters

Obviously that's just an example so please no one start posting "But 50 bombers is easier than 25 ground targets and 25 fighters!" That's not the point.

Right now, most missions I see have way too much symmetry. Each side has pretty much the same objectives, just opposite. "Red attacks parked Ju88s. Blue attacks parked Beaufighters. Red attacks tanks here. Blue attacks tanks there." Symmetry like that doesn't take into account the different weapon sets these teams have.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Even Hartmann got shot down a few times...

Totally agree with your post, except this part.
He wasn't shot down, but had a habit of running into pieces of his kills......something like 14 times
To quote the man himself "I was never another pilots victory".

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by 5./JG27.Farber

It is, through non rose tinted glasses, widely acknowlegded that the most superior fighter, by a margin, in 1940 was the 109. Later in the war the arms race sees the spit and 109 leap frogging each other however many many other factors must be taken into consideration. Its simply NOT who had the best plane won. As you mentioned - orders for one hampered the 109 driver late in BoB.

Yeah I don't get these guys that seem to believe that the 109 was better than the Spit at practically everything. If that were the case, which it patently isn't, then that means that the 109 pilots must've been crap to lose with such fantastic machines But we hear from the same people how good the LW pilots were compared to everyone else - something doesn't add up.............

..............and that's where blaming Goering comes in isn't it.....


You are correct Farber, the 109 was superior to the Spitfire, until the CPS and 100 octane was shoved in it (May/June 1940). Then it was all down to the engineers.