Friday 2010-11-12 Dev. update and Discussion

[klem]

Deleted - misposted - see further down.

[nearmiss]

There are plenty of ways to do things. A true FAQ or WIKI you would think would work.

It won't because there are always people that refuse to cooperate.
Those members always want the fresh answer, even if their question has been answered hundreds of times.

The update threads are a nuisance after the first couple days they always turn into something like this. Yet, Oleg often answers poster questions later in the week... so we let it run as a sticky thread until the next update.

If you don't like the tone of the thread... ignore the worthless words, and ask or make your own sensible postings. Oleg may answer those postings.

[philip.ed]

Nearmiss, I just think that people should not be allowed to openly say 'why are you posting this it's all crap' which pretty much sums up a few of the members on here. They could easily say this privately.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Solnyshko

+1

Pretty cleary read it that way too - why are people now falling over each other rehashing old questions? Dear god, this is beyond embarrassment!

(or have I missed something)

If that was aimed at me let me explain as I have asked questions that may well have been answered before.

First I completely agree with Oleg's comments and he may well have had my questions in mind. These Friday updates are too full of unhelpful, even irrelevant, junk and ping-pong insults that have little to with with Oleg's information or his intentions in posting the thread.

The previous Friday I was ranting, I admit, along just Oleg's lines. The thread was 90 pages long for god's sake. In it were possibly 20 relevant pages.

"Not really a big deal to check Oleg's previous answers. "
It is if there are an unknown number of threads to search especially when they can be each 40-90 pages long. It just isn't possible and picking the right words for a Search to bring them back is hit and miss and has not brought me previous questions or answers I am looking for. Sometimes its just necessary to ask the question. We haven't all been reading every thread since SoW was first discussed. There will always be people looking in who have not seen and can't find what they are looking for.

If no-one wants to answer me then I'll just have to live with it but as Oleg says, if someone knows the answer then just give it. Insulting or flaming a questioner or question, even an unwitting old one, is not what the forum is about. It's supposed to be informative and mutually helpful.

"A true FAQ or WIKI you would think would work."
If Only! There is no one place I know of where Oleg's answers are collected.

So, does anyone know the answers to my questions? (I already know about Tessellation.)

[swiss]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Nearmiss, I just think that people should not be allowed to openly say 'why are you posting this it's all crap' which pretty much sums up a few of the members on here. They could easily say this privately.

But stuff like:

"Hi Oleg, please tell me this and explain that, because the staus quo right now really looks like ****, I mean, even game xy from 1999 did that better."

should be ok.?

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by swiss

But stuff like:

"Hi Oleg, please tell me this and explain that, because the staus quo right now really looks like ****, I mean, even game xy from 1999 did that better."

should be ok.?

Not as a statement, you're right it's pointless, but if posed as a question and justified by pictures/videos/etc then why not? If it's directed at Oleg it's for him to answer; people don't need to act as his own advisors and try and answer the question for him, unless they can prove the post wrong with anyting Oleg has said or posted before
As long as everyone is calm and rational, and not rude and insulting, then things can run smoother. But yes, such posts can be rude if phrased that way. There are ways of saying things where one can be a lot more polite.

[major_setback]

So stop bickering!!!!!!!!!

[philip.ed]

Maybe that's the point; not everyone will agree with everything you have to say, so don't try and argue against that?

[Solnyshko]

I think actually Phil the point is space lost to pointless banter could be better used. Constant toing and froing such as this is exhausting to wade through *cough*

And quickly responding to Klem– and not wanting to contribute further to the faff...

Originally Posted by klem

If that was aimed at me let me explain as I have asked questions that may well have been answered before...

Not at all, apologies if it came across that way. I was responding in haste (and exasperation) - but could have been clearer. It wasn’t my intention to target individuals, on the contrary I'm also keen to hear feedback on issues you've raised.

My point, a simple one was that A) Developer posts a plea asking for cooperation and restraint B) community here then launches into a confused series of interpretations – including digging up old questions raised by Oleg seeking clarification on an earlier query from us and then, although already answered in this very thread, is given a new definition which in turn opens another discussion about what in this case I think was flaprons.... Phew

(edit) It’s understandable; there is so much to get through in an update thread, and consequently a lot of repetition. But it would I think not be asking too much to exercise self-control now and again. Just taking a moment before hitting the reply button and thinking, does everyone here really want to share this? Other forums manage it

This thread has had 39,095 hits to date – I can’t believe everyone reading is moved to voice their personal take on someone else’s reply to a question already answered.

[philip.ed]

Yes, sorry, I agree, I just thought it best we try and resolve the issue in order to reach a consensus

One thing that I'd like to see is the pilots animation when wounded. Will it be the same as normal? Or will we be able to see that the pilot is wounded? Say, for example, if we attacked a formation of Heinkels head on and killed/wounded the pilot, would we see the co-pilot take his place? And, similarly, if the rear-gunner was killed, could the bomb-aimer take his place if they had completed theit bombing run?
I can't recall such a question being asked or answered.