Yes my post should have said 87 octane. I'll fix it.
It seems to me that since we've got a load of 87 octane engines we might as well have them modelled correctly, since the vast majority of the effort required has already been expended.
I agree that we should also have, as a priority, realistic aircraft correctly modelled for the Battle itself, with 100 octane fuel and +12 combat ratings.
I don't think that there is any particular barrier preventing this from happening.
There have probably been a few typographical errors made along the way. Given the major bugs that make the sim unplayable for quite a lot of people I think it's pretty easy to understand why getting accurate performance is taking a while; it's just not going to be at the top of the "to do" list.
The chances are that once the sim is patched to a stage where it runs smoothly for the majority of users who meet the minimum system requirements then we'll start to see a shift in emphasis towards aircraft performance and other "non-show-stopping" bugs.
Naturally, I'm somewhat disappointed with the fact that the sim doesn't work properly out of the box, but past experience with IL2 suggests that we've got more chance of seeing the problems fixed by 1c than we might have with other developers.
|
05-11-2011, 12:39 AM
Threaded Mode