FW190 FM Change

[schnorchel]

The main issue for top speed of German plane is that you need several mins to get thesepeed which is 20-30km/h lower than il2compare top speed value. But for Las they are very easily and very quickly to get top speed.this game is dying.

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by schnorchel

The main issue for top speed of German plane is that you need several mins to get thesepeed which is 20-30km/h lower than il2compare top speed value. But for Las they are very easily and very quickly to get top speed.this game is dying.

Yep, exactly. And by the time you reach that speed your'e in the serious overheat territory...

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

The whole game is dying, because two of the racer planes do not feel the way, that you imagine. Yep, understood.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar

The whole game is dying, because two of the racer planes do not feel the way, that you imagine. Yep, understood.

That´s the attitude, Casper!!!
Great effort.

[K_Freddie]

In a way Casper is correct.
There was a lull in activity with the great expectations of Clod, but this has not proven to be what it's worth.
There should have been a larger swing back to IL2 and TD's updates, but this has not been as much as expected, probably for numerous reasons, but I'd say these are tops..

- Age ... Time has moved on (profound statement )
- Modding... IL2 lost it's standard 'baseline' that everyone could trust online. While extras, effects and maps are a great help. Interfering with the FMs and DMs in an uncontrolled way simply reduced that online atmosphere of competition, which was the main draw-card of IL2.

[kennel]

I thought Casper was being sarcastic to the comment made by another poster. Maybe he is sick & tired of all of the bs.

After all if you contribute your time to a passion & sombody takes a very -ve approach to that most people generally crack the sh@ts

[Fenrir]

The sense of indignant entitlement that seems to hang round any Il-2 forum like a bad smell is really starting to grate.

Caspar has every right to be sarcastic - his and his teams efforts are done for no financial gain and a massive amount of hard graft, and what thanks do they get? Criticism, insults and belittlement of their toil.

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault; it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

And remember a lot of the figures being quoted come from secondary sources, books whose authors are no doubt thorough researchers but often who have pulled figures from other secondary sources. Unreliable at best.

Find a verifably original document of a tested front-line VVS aircraft in fighting trim with all the figures you desire and THEN present your opions to the TD chaps. Otherwise all your typing is nothing but mere conjecture.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Caspar has every right to be sarcastic ...

If we want a constructive discussion, sarcasm won´t get us nowhere.
Sad enough to have flaming forum trolls, but flaming developers is not acceptable.

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault; it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

I want to believe you are correct, I would be sure if sources were presented, which is not the case. As long as this is not presented it is thin air.
Asking questions must legitimate and is scinetific method.
Flaming about is ruining the work of the developers team.

So my plea to everyone on the forum is -if cannot say anything construcive, don´t say anything.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Of course it was sarcasm. It one way to tell people, that they said something stupid, without being to honest about it.

Most FM discussions are about late war uberplanes, again and again. That shows me, what kind of spirit that is, where the attitude is, and that tells me where the oppinions come from and that tells me, how I can judge it.

I didn't say, the stock FMs are holy and correct - and especially not in case of the La's (Haha!). But its not only the late war planes, its everywhere in the game, lots of planes need to be revised and more over: reseached with care!
FM's are gonna be looked at, one after another. There are some quite good informations about La-7 over at one or two other threads in this forum. Thats a good thing - so no sarcasm there. But 'the game is dying' because of what? Sorry, that won't get something different from me.

[Z1024]

Originally Posted by Fenrir

You think they pull flight model data from thin air? Make it up as they go along? They use sources that have documentable historical authenticity - now if these were cherry picked at the time by the people who compiled the report and the data does not truly represent an aircraft of the line then that is not their fault;

And how do you know all that exactly? Are you affiliated with 1C/the original Maddox team or TD or know what their processes are? Or you just believe in that without any factual evidence?

I'm sure for some aircraft no test data is available or it is incomplete so they just had to do their own modelling, and/or use estimated/predicted performance figures or even plausible guesstimating (and nobody blames them for that). (Lershe, Ta183? they were never built, let alone tested)
We do appreciate their work and we are grateful for it. Personally I find the 6DOF support fantastic.
I would't say the game is dying either. It is still the best WW2 Air Sim.
But there is always room for improvement - including the FM department.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

it certainly does not mean that gut reaction, estimated opinion or some highly subjective feeling should be used to 'correct' it. After all, in that situation, whose opinion is correct?

This is not gut reaction/feeling, we give figures to support our observations, and use very basic and general logic (the "if a>b and b>c then a>c" kind). For example we've established that in the game FW190D9 MW50 overheats and its engine fails faster than La7s even though Junkers allowed max power setting for 30min and MW50 for 10min at a time and La7 pilots were allowed to use max power for 5min. So you'd kinda expect D9 should take longer to overheat than La7 but this is not the case in the game.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

And remember a lot of the figures being quoted come from secondary sources, books whose authors are no doubt thorough researchers but often who have pulled figures from other secondary sources. Unreliable at best.

If you believe some source is unreliable - you need to specify which one, and why. Otherwise this sentence is meaningless and has no substance.

Originally Posted by Fenrir

Find a verifably original document of a tested front-line VVS aircraft in fighting trim with all the figures you desire and THEN present your opions to the TD chaps. Otherwise all your typing is nothing but mere conjecture.

In case you were addressing me - see my earlier posts comparing the data pulled from test reports and FW figures with the Il2 compare figures.
And I am using sources that at least look reliable: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...326#post434326