British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[Bounder!]

Originally Posted by PotNoodles

I think if this game is going to stand out as been great, then it is going to have to get the FM correct. Seriously, if they are not going to get this right then how can it be classed as been great? I mean, you may aswell place an F16 jet in there and make up a FM for 109 to shoot it down. You cannot just make up your own FM if you are trying to make a sim.

+1 to this

The current flight model of the Spit 1a (both varients) and Spit 2a is miles off what it should be and seems to be going the wrong way. The last patch has killed these aircraft both with the engine overheating problems at mid-high altitude and these aircraft now suffer terrible acceleration and very poor climb rates compared to the 109.

We know roughly what the performance of these two aircraft were and how closely they matched up in reality during BoB which is one of the attractions to the BoB era imo. When the Spit 2a was vastly outperforming the 109 we had a lot of whining on the forums (quite rightly) but now we have the opposite situation with the 109s becoming the UFOs/rocket ships by comparison. This isn't a nerf the 109 post, it's a get the FM right for the sets of aircraft post. The Spit 1a variants and 2a are porked right now and need sorting out.

[Osprey]

The only correction to make to Bounder is that he says 'mid/high alt'. Of course this is not correct since 1C have failed to supply 'high alt' completely.

[Talisman]

Sadly, I think this sim has already lost a lot of credibility in the eyes of many and I believe it is now in danger of losing credibility with even the more hard core enthusiasts as we lurch from bad to worse historical FM/performance, particularly in relation to red aircraft. If blue aircraft end up in as bad a state as red in this respect, we will really be in trouble. For me, it is the historical aspects that attract me to this sim. Take away the history and this might as well be Star Wars, which does not attract me at all.

[Osprey]

Wouldn't be so bad if we knew what was going on somewhat, and that we could actually trust the items they claim to be working on because tbh so far it's been a pack of lies. We presently have a mix between zero communication and just plain falsities. It's a horrible way to treat your customers.

There used to be 1000's playing 1946, now with barely 200 on that and about 50 on COD I fear that the fanbase is lost for good.

[PotNoodles]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Wouldn't be so bad if we knew what was going on somewhat, and that we could actually trust the items they claim to be working on because tbh so far it's been a pack of lies. We presently have a mix between zero communication and just plain falsities. It's a horrible way to treat your customers.

There used to be 1000's playing 1946, now with barely 200 on that and about 50 on COD I fear that the fanbase is lost for good.

I have to agree with this, it's been another 3 weeks without any update and to me that isn't good customer service. Seriously, if we are all expected to test these beta patches then we should also be updated frequently about what is going on. I don't see the point in giving feedback and hearing nothing from them for weeks.

[JtD]

Summer holidays. Might even happen in Russia.

[PotNoodles]

Originally Posted by JtD

Summer holidays. Might even happen in Russia.

Behave!!

[kristorf]

Just my two peneth,

Regarding online numbers.
If the Channel Map were fixed so coops could be played on it as was one of the original concept there would be a lot more squads use it, I know mine would be tempted to do so.

[MB_Avro_UK]

Originally Posted by kristorf

Just my two peneth,

Regarding online numbers.
If the Channel Map were fixed so coops could be played on it as was one of the original concept there would be a lot more squads use it, I know mine would be tempted to do so.

Same here.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by kristorf

Just my two peneth,

Regarding online numbers.
If the Channel Map were fixed so coops could be played on it as was one of the original concept there would be a lot more squads use it, I know mine would be tempted to do so.

But you can play co-op, Banks co-op coding does just that. It's not via an official menu and there is a small amount of initial fiddling that a toddler could handle, but other than that it IS a co-op. I'm talking about all starting together, be it with an airstart or not, and even with your own group of AI to follow you about if the mission builder desires it. I know this because I've done co-op in 1946, and now in COD. The only difference is that you all spawn in a grounded aircraft then use the menu to select another aircraft. Then when you all select to start/spawn you will be spawned into your selected machine - you can time this using voice or chatbar, the system doesn't do it for you.

Then there is the whole mission style mapping in COD so you have a co-op feel anyway - the 5./JG27 campaign was just that. I don't buy these excuses tbh, or indeed any of these other 'major' squads that we are apparently missing from COD online, it just seems a bit of an easy cop out. IMHO co-op is not required but rather something that people are used to and desire. It was never realistic anyway and it doesn't suit the BoB (after all, Germans pretty much always took off first). If anything we need a proper fighter command RDF system which orders scrambles based on incoming reports
Had you said that people have performance issues with COD or that the FM's mean that it's not workable I would agree, but not regarding missions themselves, they function perfectly well.

Anybody out there who wants to do this sort of stuff in COD then see us at www.aircombatgroup.co.uk, allied and axis, doesn't matter, we run both, and we've had no major problems with actual missions.

~S~