Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[MegOhm]

[QUOTE=BlackSix;408445]Good day everyone!

"We're very glad to announce that the beta patch is largely done. It's going into wide internal testing today, which will last through the weekend and probably a couple of days more. After we make sure nothing is amiss, we'll make the beta patch available to everyone"

Since a couple equals two, the Patch should be available Wednesday, unless something is amiss. But then B6 actually said "and probably a couple of days more". "Probably" is a good out... even though intentions are good.

Let's hope nothing is amiss...or all bets could be off....

I see the Cage fights continue....Bet there were not this many "experts" in the RAF and Luftwaffe combined!

If you ever work(ed) for Intel...you would learn there is a such thing as "disagree and commit"

Sad...Oh to be moderator for a day.... :Flush:

[MIRGERVIN]

i cant bellieve there is nothing about fixing the spit mk1 and mk1a and hurri boost. do they not realise it dosent work or am i just crazy?

[SEE]

It's a Beta, there will be plenty of 'feedback' ( I use the term very loosely...).

But look on the bright side, If the Spit2 is dumbed down it could be back on servers without limits - the boost does work on that!

Not sure what I am more excited about - Hmm? - the 'patch' or the responses to the revised FM. It ain't even released yet and the arguments have started ....

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by MIRGERVIN

i cant bellieve there is nothing about fixing the spit mk1 and mk1a and hurri boost. do they not realise it dosent work or am i just crazy?

Originally Posted by Talisman

Why the boost cut-out operation does not work properly and why we appear to have less boost available than was the case in history with 100 Octane fuel is a puzzle to me. To read so many combat reports by veterans about how they used the boost cut-out and the surge of extra power they obtained and not get that experince in CloD has been very dissapointing to say the least.

Are these listed in the bugtracker? http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...s?set_filter=1

If these issues do not have many votes the devs may consider it not important. Please register and vote to let them know what community priorities are.

I can see only one entry for Spit Ia there. http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84
This should mean to the devs that others are modelled correctly. They can not read all forum threads.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Ataros

Are these listed in the bugtracker? http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...s?set_filter=1

If these issues do not have many votes the devs may consider it not important. Please register and vote to let them know what community priorities are.

I can see only one entry for Spit Ia there. http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84
This should mean to the devs that others are modelled correctly. They can not read all forum threads.

With all due respect and again, I may be ignorant, but shouldnt this be a given? Shouldn't the devs' own research have been used to establish what the correct engine paramaters and historical data was?

If historical data is genuinely split on whether 87 or 100 was used, why not introduce 87/100 variants of all planes, or of only the hurricane, lets say, and leave only 100 octane spits, for example?

But most of all - regardless of the engine management, boost cut outs etc, are the ingame planes showing performance that accords to an 87 octane or 100 octane version? Or neither? What historical data is even being used here?

Also, lets keep in mind that just making the planes perform like 100 octane, 12lb boosted versions at normal engine boosts is not a good solution, because the real things couldnt operate fully boosted all the time.

What we clearly need here is a proper set of graphs showing just which historical data is being used, and how the ingame planes compare.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Maybe the issue shouldn't be called "100 octane" but "+12 emergency boost". It doesn't matter if the flight model can't simulate the effects of different octane ratings, but it can for sure simulate more horse power for a engine.

You're right, assuming the engine didn't perform any better at lower boosts on the 100 octane stuff. But I think we all know what is being talked about here and that is whether the allied planes we have ingame are acting like 87 octane, 6lb? boost planes or 100 octane, 12lb (for a short time) boosted planes - and whether they match the historical performance of one or the other.

Myself, I don't know what the correct figures and octane is. But I want this SORTED above all else save framerate. This is one of the most basic aspects of the sim, and it shouldnt take a bug ticket to have it fixed. It's been a year+ since the sim came out. This should have been fixed on R(elease) day + 1

[Gourmand]

i hope we can have some news from the patch today...
i'm impatient to beta-test it

[albx]

Originally Posted by Gourmand

i hope we can have some news from the patch today...
i'm impatient to beta-test it

well, i would like to have the beta patch instead of the news

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

With all due respect and again, I may be ignorant, but shouldnt this be a given? Shouldn't the devs' own research have been used to establish what the correct engine paramaters and historical data was?

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.

[irR4tiOn4L]

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!

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?

[SEE]

Originally Posted by Ataros

Are these listed in the bugtracker? http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...s?set_filter=1

If these issues do not have many votes the devs may consider it not important. Please register and vote to let them know what community priorities are.

I can see only one entry for Spit Ia there. http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84
This should mean to the devs that others are modelled correctly. They can not read all forum threads.

The problem Ataros is that the community have gone to enormous lengths to highlight issues (with little official response from the devs) and have not bothered or just given up repeating the same set of bugs over and over again.

Most of us expected that threads such as this had the same purpose.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29526