PDA

View Full Version : IL-2: BOS Live Stream Record 12/09/013



Headshot
Sep-13-2013, 09:54
I love the engine braking,look at about 17:00



http://youtu.be/Oia-B3--buw

PFT_Endy
Sep-13-2013, 10:55
Ok, take a look at roll rates using ailerons only near the end of the video. This plane seems to have a better roll rate than a FW190...

Foul Ole Ron
Sep-13-2013, 14:58
I was thinking the same thing. If the Lagg rolls like that then a fighter that actually had a good roll rate will be like a F-16. Also it seems a very twitchy model for a plane that was always described as heavy and sluggish. Anyway will reserve proper judgement once we get the release. Guess they're still in the tweaking phase for now.

PFT_Endy
Sep-13-2013, 15:06
I find it curious that nobody on BOS forums seems to have noticed that or found it uhm, a bit unrealistic. Unless they delete such stuff right away :)

Dutch
Sep-13-2013, 18:29
I always look at these things, then see that they are 33 minutes long, and just click through them till the end. Does anyone actually watch and listen all the way through?

=BKHZ=Furbs
Sep-14-2013, 13:38
I always look at these things, then see that they are 33 minutes long, and just click through them till the end. Does anyone actually watch and listen all the way through?


Yes, plenty do.
And a fair few join the TS and have a Q and A with Jason for about a hour, its great to have such excellent communication from the developers, something that has been lacking in resent years.

PFT_Endy
Sep-14-2013, 14:31
The problem is not the communication but the fact they're showing off and bragging about the flight models in their game while they clearly don't exist yet...

The crazy roll rate on the Lagg is just one example and they're showing it as if they achieved something awesome. Did you also notice how the planes take off and start climbing without a sweat? Try that in Clod or DCS, you'll see what happens.

Yet there was not one word of criticism about the obvious flaws in FM modelling anywhere on their forums. I don't doubt it would either be deleted or you'd be shouted at by the fanbois saying that it's only alpha etc. Yet the des seem to be happy about presenting this stuff and they never say: "it's alpha, the FM's are obviously incomplete etc.". No, instead they are showing how awesome it is because they can stall the plane...

vranac
Sep-14-2013, 15:57
Super roll was noticed even on the first video with Lagg.

Also other strange things about snap roll are found by one guy. He was bashed, then accused of using second account without specifying his original nickname
and banned.


SashaPokryshkin

Posted on September 12, 2013 - 1:01

When you are doing the snap roll algorithm is as follows: pull the stick on yourself and pedal, and then immediately after the collapse of the most vigorous push the handle from youself and pedal in the opposite direction.
If you look closely at the video, it does not happen, the plane takes off the pedal, and leaves without pedals - not refinement of the physical model.
Next on the list: on the video we see how plane is flying at ground level with a maximum roll, but miracle WHERE IS SLIDE to keep the plane pilot does not press on the pedal, but sadly there is not slipping in a physical model, and there is no shift in use of the rudder to counter the phenomenon is not necessary.
That's another question - and the sources from which information on the procedure for withdrawal of the aircraft from a spin, who said that if the first does not give the pedal, the airplane will come out of a spin with a delay? (On the basis of what is the physical phenomenon?)
Performing "The ailerons" barrel kit moglaby be porazmazanney, yet the lift of the wing is not going away, and in inverted flight is not pulled down weakly .
To judge the geometry of the snap roll without view with a static camera is difficult, but the shape of the part must be of a horizontal spin, and not just turn around of center.
Toward the end there is the reference for uncorrectness the modes and etc..
Particular attention on PP and the screw speed regulator.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMA02zNJ5xM&

Also look at the 17:40 acceleration of LaGG. That looks very unrealistic. LaGG was heavy wooden plane and lack of acceleration was its weak point. You can expect something like that with Yak but with LaGG no way.
In some interview with Russian pilot that flew on LaGG and many other planes he said when he was young and unexperienced pilot LaGG was terrible plane to fly.
Only after few years and some experience ( he was instructor also) he could fly it well.
But he said that if you loose speed on LaGG you couldn't gain it back and you are dead meat.

=BKHZ=Furbs
Sep-14-2013, 16:43
The problem is not the communication but the fact they're showing off and bragging about the flight models in their game while they clearly don't exist yet...

The crazy roll rate on the Lagg is just one example and they're showing it as if they achieved something awesome. Did you also notice how the planes take off and start climbing without a sweat? Try that in Clod or DCS, you'll see what happens.

Yet there was not one word of criticism about the obvious flaws in FM modelling anywhere on their forums. I don't doubt it would either be deleted or you'd be shouted at by the fanbois saying that it's only alpha etc. Yet the des seem to be happy about presenting this stuff and they never say: "it's alpha, the FM's are obviously incomplete etc.". No, instead they are showing how awesome it is because they can stall the plane...


I re-watched the video and the last one and i didn't hear anyone bragging the FM is already perfect, or how awesome it is that the planes stall, they were just showing the stall recovery procedure.
In fact Jason said himself the up and coming beta testing period is for just that, for testing everything, FM, DM and everything thing else in the game.
Of course if the FM's are wrong, it should be pointed out in the beta and if it is not corrected that will be the time to complain.

Dutch
Sep-14-2013, 17:07
I re-watched the video and the last one and i didn't hear anyone bragging the FM is already perfect, or how awesome it is that the planes stall, they were just showing the stall recovery procedure.
In fact Jason said himself the up and coming beta testing period is for just that, for testing everything, FM, DM and everything thing else in the game.
Of course if the FM's are wrong, it will be pointed out in the beta and if it is not corrected that will be the time complain.

Allo Furbsy. :D

I agree that it's possibly a little early to be talking about FMs, just slightly....:D, But even so, those live stream things aren't exactly the most riveting entertainment available to flight sim aficionados. Tedious stuff.

But as a 'gold bar on my avatar' pre-purchaser, I want to see more interesting things. It strikes me that these 'live stream' vids are geared to cater for the Rise of Flight community, who've spent years flying old crates with nothing but mixture and radiator to manage. Who haven't had different reflections from wood and metal before, who haven't had anything remotely resembling 'Complex Engine Management'. It just seems a bit 'dumbed down' to me, as if they think that cfs fans have never sat in a WWII aircraft. Strange, given the branding they've 'inherited'. Don't you think?

PFT_Endy
Sep-14-2013, 17:11
I re-watched the video and the last one and i didn't hear anyone bragging the FM is already perfect, or how awesome it is that the planes stall, they were just showing the stall recovery procedure.
In fact Jason said himself the up and coming beta testing period is for just that, for testing everything, FM, DM and everything thing else in the game.
Of course if the FM's are wrong, it will be pointed out in the beta and if it is not corrected that will be the time complain.

Of course I exaggerated a bit to make the point, don't take everything so literally. But there's also no mention of "hey look how unrealistic the FM's are, but we'll fix it". And looking at how they totally neglect FM's in ROF they will probably stay terrible, maybe less than they are but still, perhaps with minor tweaks.

I've also a strong suspicion russian planes will be much better than they were in reality if only to make the game more "balanced". Otherwise they'd have to deal with russian players on the forums complaining they don't stand a chance and screw real performance values.

Edit: Besides I doubt they'd start showing the videos if that wasn't more or less the FM they intend to keep. Sure, there might be minot tweaks but that roll, accelleration or climb rate will probably not change much. You start with something, input some performance data but you don't keep it or show it if you think it's obviously faaaar from anything real.

Foul Ole Ron
Sep-14-2013, 17:26
For comparison here's the DCS Mustang performing the same type of aileron roll with no use of rudder pedals and travelling first at around 300mph and then at a little over 200mph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCST1BBxBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MdYt1bJ5MA

A far slower roll than the Lagg-3 and the Mustang was an aircraft that reflected the USAF's philosophy that a fighter's roll rate was far more important than it's turn rate. The Mustang has a wing design that lends itself better to rolling quickly than the Lagg-3. Anyway it's still pre-alpha right now but it should be pretty clear to them that something is significantly off here. There is just no way the Lagg-3 of all planes rolled that fast.

=BKHZ=Furbs
Sep-14-2013, 19:46
Allo Furbsy. :D

I agree that it's possibly a little early to be talking about FMs, just slightly....:D, But even so, those live stream things aren't exactly the most riveting entertainment available to flight sim aficionados. Tedious stuff.

But as a 'gold bar on my avatar' pre-purchaser, I want to see more interesting things. It strikes me that these 'live stream' vids are geared to cater for the Rise of Flight community, who've spent years flying old crates with nothing but mixture and radiator to manage. Who haven't had different reflections from wood and metal before, who haven't had anything remotely resembling 'Complex Engine Management'. It just seems a bit 'dumbed down' to me, as if they think that cfs fans have never sat in a WWII aircraft. Strange, given the branding they've 'inherited'. Don't you think?

Hi Dutch! agree the streams are getting a little dull, we need to start seeing more from them now, but im sure we will as features are added and polished.
Anyway, not too long until we can take a closer look ourselves i hope.

=BKHZ=Furbs
Sep-14-2013, 19:54
Of course I exaggerated a bit to make the point, don't take everything so literally. But there's also no mention of "hey look how unrealistic the FM's are, but we'll fix it". And looking at how they totally neglect FM's in ROF they will probably stay terrible, maybe less than they are but still, perhaps with minor tweaks.

I've also a strong suspicion russian planes will be much better than they were in reality if only to make the game more "balanced". Otherwise they'd have to deal with russian players on the forums complaining they don't stand a chance and screw real performance values.

Edit: Besides I doubt they'd start showing the videos if that wasn't more or less the FM they intend to keep. Sure, there might be minot tweaks but that roll, accelleration or climb rate will probably not change much. You start with something, input some performance data but you don't keep it or show it if you think it's obviously faaaar from anything real.

Im not sure how you can call them "terrible" without getting your hands on them yourself in the released version or at least the beta stage, if they are terrible then there will be enough posts about it im sure, and i will be one of them shouting the loudest.

When the early release starts in October, that will be when the shouting starts, though to be honest when it comes to FMs you cant please everyone.

=BKHZ=Furbs
Sep-14-2013, 19:58
For comparison here's the DCS Mustang performing the same type of aileron roll with no use of rudder pedals and travelling first at around 300mph and then at a little over 200mph.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfCST1BBxBA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MdYt1bJ5MA

A far slower roll than the Lagg-3 and the Mustang was an aircraft that reflected the USAF's philosophy that a fighter's roll rate was far more important than it's turn rate. The Mustang has a wing design that lends itself better to rolling quickly than the Lagg-3. Anyway it's still pre-alpha right now but it should be pretty clear to them that something is significantly off here. There is just no way the Lagg-3 of all planes rolled that fast.

Yep i agree the Lagg's roll rate surprised me too, i dont think there is any question its far too fast.
If im on TS next week for the Q and A with Jason i will make a point of asking him.

PFT_Endy
Sep-15-2013, 04:14
Im not sure how you can call them "terrible" without getting your hands on them yourself in the released version or at least the beta stage, if they are terrible then there will be enough posts about it im sure, and i will be one of them shouting the loudest.

When the early release starts in October, that will be when the shouting starts, though to be honest when it comes to FMs you cant please everyone.

Well, looking at the videos I'd say that the engine has potential to make decent flight models and simulate flight physics fairly well, I'm just not sure how it will be in the release.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like the game to be as realistic as possible and have the best flight models possible, but I'm afraid they will not care all that much for realism and make a game with something resembling IL2:1946 FMs. Right now it's clear from the movies that very many things are unrealistic and hopefully all this can be fixed before release, I'm just not sure there will be a will to pursue real flight models all that hard. I know you can't please anyone, but you can aim for realism and judging by how the planes (both Lagg and BF109) looked like on the livestreams it's a long way away from reality.

I'd also love to see the DM, which is one of my concerns. If it's something like ROF, with hitboxes and a number of bullets to destroy each part then it will be a real shame...

Headshot
Sep-15-2013, 07:39
I'm just happy for any info on a game/subject I'm interested in. I think it's a bit early to criticise and I personally will make my own mind up when I have a copy of the game for myself. I have loved COD from the day of release and even now there is debate on flight modeling. I look forward to BOS not because it will be better than COD but as change. New planes and environment. The last vid showed an ac taking off with a strong cross wind. We don't have this now with COD so it'll be a nice new challenge. Lastly did I mention I will be getting a shiny new FW-190:)

gavagai
Sep-15-2013, 11:49
After the debacle with the Rise of Flight FMs is anyone surprised? Pfalzicopter, anyone? Nieuport Brickyeight? Snailbatros? It will take 2 years for someone to come up with definitive proof that something is wrong, and then they'll say there are no resources/time/money to do anything about it.

Watching the videos it confirms my suspicion that Loft is far more interested in pretty graphics than correct physics and other technical points. It shows in RoF, too.

Foul Ole Ron
Sep-15-2013, 18:21
Guess we'll see what comes down the pipe then next year once it's officially released. They publicly committed to modelling highly realistic flight models. Han from 777 came on the DCS forums and said that BOS' flight models will not be less than the DCS Mustang. If there's some real aberrations then like with ROF they'll be in for a right hammering given the data that's available so it's in their interests to get them as right as they can. So far from what I've seen in the pre-alpha they've got a good bit of work to do in that area but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until closer to release.

Wulf
Sep-15-2013, 20:21
Guess we'll see what comes down the pipe then next year once it's officially released. They publicly committed to modelling highly realistic flight models. Han from 777 came on the DCS forums and said that BOS' flight models will not be less than the DCS Mustang. If there's some real aberrations then like with ROF they'll be in for a right hammering given the data that's available so it's in their interests to get them as right as they can. So far from what I've seen in the pre-alpha they've got a good bit of work to do in that area but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until closer to release.


I agree with the above. I believe we should cut these people a bit of slack for now. After all, they appear to be doing everything they said they would, which is a good start in my book. They also appear reasonably open and honest about what they're doing and they're actually making an effort to 'reach-out' to the community. Sure, the live-feed things can be a bit dull but at least they're doing it. And if the Lagg 3 is anything to go by then clearly the FMs are unfinished at this point. But so what? I don't recall anyone from the development team suggesting the FMs were done and dusted. I'm not saying we won't have cause to complain later on, I'm sure we will. If we don't it would surely be a first, well for flight sims at any rate. But right now, with an actual beta being nowhere in sight, complaining just seem a little unreasonable. And I'm not just saying this cos I'm one of the gold avatar 'founder' blokes with the special forum, free whores and vodka either. Well, OK, the whores and vodka obviously help, but that's not the reason. :D

PFT_Endy
Sep-16-2013, 03:58
The problem is not that it's alpha. The problem is twofold:

1. Lack of developer commentary in the tone "the FM's are obviously unfinished, we'll work on them"

2. Lack of commentary on the forums by players. This worries me much more as I'm not so sure about what you said, that there will be a public outrage if the models are screwed etc. More likely it would be one or two separated oices on the forums quickly followed by fanboys saying that "obviously you can't satisfy everyone with FM's" followed by a flame war and closing of the topics. That is the bigger problem, lack of public reaction.

The thing is, if people don't start mentioning these things as soon as videos are released then the devs will think everything's fine and they don't need to bother with realistic FM's, that the public accept what they see. This, and later on beta, is the exact time such things should be noticed and mentioned, this is the exact time to bitch about it, so that they don't slack and have to work on FM's before release. After the game is released it might be too late because "balance" and other crap like that...

ATAG_Bliss
Sep-16-2013, 07:31
The problem is not that it's alpha. The problem is twofold:

1. Lack of developer commentary in the tone "the FM's are obviously unfinished, we'll work on them"

2. Lack of commentary on the forums by players. This worries me much more as I'm not so sure about what you said, that there will be a public outrage if the models are screwed etc. More likely it would be one or two separated oices on the forums quickly followed by fanboys saying that "obviously you can't satisfy everyone with FM's" followed by a flame war and closing of the topics. That is the bigger problem, lack of public reaction.

The thing is, if people don't start mentioning these things as soon as videos are released then the devs will think everything's fine and they don't need to bother with realistic FM's, that the public accept what they see. This, and later on beta, is the exact time such things should be noticed and mentioned, this is the exact time to bitch about it, so that they don't slack and have to work on FM's before release. After the game is released it might be too late because "balance" and other crap like that...

Regarding #2 - Sadly I don't think a large majority of the playerbase that will play BoS will really care that much about the flight models. It will probably be just like what happened in ROF.. People even offered to pay for FM revisions etc., but in the end many just gave up and stopped playing it. And without the opportunity for modded versions of the game etc., I think you are going to get stuck with what you get.

The Lagg clearly rolled way too fast. Just compare it to the P51D in DCS and it rolls like an F15 in comparison. How much will get fixed etc., before release is yet to be seen. But my biggest worry still lies within the game engine itself. If they can't fix the object limitations, the MP limitations, the AI limitations, the game will be what ROF is, a dog fight simulator with an empty world to fly in. And as others have mentioned, if the damage model is still very simple hit boxes, that's one more step back.

Time will tell, but in 4 years of ROF they haven't fixed that stuff. I'll be really impressed if they can magically fix the game engine and, on top of that, make a WWII sim, in a little over a year.

aus3620
Sep-16-2013, 07:39
I'm no marketing guru but I don't think stressing your products shortcomings is part of marketing 101!
Get a grip! This is pre-alpha!

ATAG_Bliss
Sep-16-2013, 07:46
I'm no marketing guru but I don't think stressing your products shortcomings is part of marketing 101!
Get a grip! This is pre-alpha!

For some of us that have spent hundreds on ROF, it's a very legitimate concern. Regardless if the graphics piece of BoS is in pre alpha or not, the game engine has been around for a long time. That's the meat and potatoes of the whole thing. I know I'm not the only one worried about the game engine. For comparison sake, in 4 years after IL2 was out, there was already community after community growing, MP was huge, more people were buying into the game. Looking at ROF online now, it has even less players than it did when I played it. That is not a good sign IMO.

Headshot
Sep-16-2013, 08:16
I have bad memories of COD before release I wished people could have been more positive. As for me, theres no risk involved in supporting an idea of a game. I will buy a game, play the game and if I don't like it then no great lose. At least I gave it a go. As far as COD goes I've played over 660 hrs so even though I got the pre release limited addition for over $100 Australian,thats about 15c an hour. Bargain!

gavagai
Sep-16-2013, 08:17
I'm no marketing guru but I don't think stressing your products shortcomings is part of marketing 101!
Get a grip! This is pre-alpha!

They're dealing with a special audience here. We're more likely to spend money on their product if we get the truth instead of a sound bite. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with expecting the truth in a free and open business transaction. Marketing is a human-science that aims at compelling people to buy stuff they do not actually want. Think about that.

ATAG_Bliss
Sep-16-2013, 08:22
I have bad memories of COD before release I wished people could have been more positive. As for me, theres no risk involved in supporting an idea of a game. I will buy a game, play the game and if I don't like it then no great lose. At least I gave it a go. As far as COD goes I've played over 660 hrs so even though I got the pre release limited addition for over $100 Australian,thats about 15c an hour. Bargain!

Yep - I've bought the premo edition of BoS. I think I will get my money's worth out of it. But what I've been searching for (what Clod should have been) is the sequel to the original IL2. Something that lasts for 10+ years etc. There's a certain recipe that old IL2 had, that made it happen. Clod almost did it, and definitely could have done it had it had more time. I guess what I'm saying is, it won't get there unless core stuff is worked on / fixed. But for a flight simmer we at least have a few choices on the horizon. Hopefully the competition between the 2 causes both development camps to make something special.

Chivas
Sep-16-2013, 13:48
Yep - I've bought the premo edition of BoS. I think I will get my money's worth out of it. But what I've been searching for (what Clod should have been) is the sequel to the original IL2. Something that lasts for 10+ years etc. There's a certain recipe that old IL2 had, that made it happen. Clod almost did it, and definitely could have done it had it had more time. I guess what I'm saying is, it won't get there unless core stuff is worked on / fixed. But for a flight simmer we at least have a few choices on the horizon. Hopefully the competition between the 2 causes both development camps to make something special.

I think one of the keys too any sims longevity is the Full Mission Builder, where users can create hundreds of missions and campaigns. The original IL-2 had this. COD's FMB is similar, but lacks some documentation for using scripts and triggers. ROF's mission builder is complex, but its not user friendly enough to create anywhere near the amount of user made content to take the sim to the next level. It will be interesting to see what improvements can be made. Their developer has said they've made some improvements to aircraft and object count, but it remains to be seen if its enough.

AKA_Recon
Sep-16-2013, 14:51
Regarding #2 - Sadly I don't think a large majority of the playerbase that will play BoS will really care that much about the flight models. It will probably be just like what happened in ROF.. People even offered to pay for FM revisions etc., but in the end many just gave up and stopped playing it. And without the opportunity for modded versions of the game etc., I think you are going to get stuck with what you get.

The Lagg clearly rolled way too fast. Just compare it to the P51D in DCS and it rolls like an F15 in comparison. How much will get fixed etc., before release is yet to be seen. But my biggest worry still lies within the game engine itself. If they can't fix the object limitations, the MP limitations, the AI limitations, the game will be what ROF is, a dog fight simulator with an empty world to fly in. And as others have mentioned, if the damage model is still very simple hit boxes, that's one more step back.

Time will tell, but in 4 years of ROF they haven't fixed that stuff. I'll be really impressed if they can magically fix the game engine and, on top of that, make a WWII sim, in a little over a year.

I have to add though as far as #2 goes, none of us have the 'beta' yet - so until we can get hands on, it's not going to come up. Deciding if a FM is good or not from just developer alpha video's is not really something to be concerned with imo. And the point of some of these videos could be to show certain items, that doesn't mean there isn't a build where another developer is working through the FM.

This isn't to make an excuse for them, but just an observation.

Personally, I'm concerned about the game from the videos, seems like they have much work to do - I can't believe they will have this ready as a RTM by the spring. I haven't seen anything about bombing yet either. I was told by forum members (which I don't know they would know), to not expect any bomber to be ready by the 'autumn' release.

Archie
Sep-16-2013, 18:03
Now now, its R̶o̶F̶ BoS, the flight models will be perfect.

Stig1207
Sep-17-2013, 02:33
So the CoD Spitfire roll-rate isn't slow being on a par with the Mustang (and a Cessna, apparently):)

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5564

PFT_Endy
Sep-17-2013, 03:06
Spitfire with normal wing rolled faster than the Mustang. Even more so with clipped wing. Your point?

There's a world of a difference between models in Clod and a Lagg3 rolling as fast as a FW190. I know you tried to show that discussions on FM are relative but it's not the same here.

Archie
Sep-17-2013, 05:38
I watched one livestream, with TS on.It was like a Justin Bieber concert, I thought people were going to start throwing their knickers at their monitor any second.

Stig1207
Sep-17-2013, 06:58
Spitfire with normal wing rolled faster than the Mustang. Even more so with clipped wing. Your point?

There's a world of a difference between models in Clod and a Lagg3 rolling as fast as a FW190. I know you tried to show that discussions on FM are relative but it's not the same here.

I agree, it's not the same, but the Lagg3 FM being discussed is taken from a vid of a sim that is pre-alpha, so comparing Bos to other sims on that basis seems a little premature.

PFT_Endy
Sep-17-2013, 08:01
I agree, it's not the same, but the Lagg3 FM being discussed is taken from a vid of a sim that is pre-alpha, so comparing Bos to other sims on that basis seems a little premature.

I agree it might be premature but what is worrisome is mentioned in the previous posts, lack of dev mention of it and the general jerking off of the fanboys at the sight of the game, and if someone noticed it he was shouted at by others. I particularly liked: "I'm certain FMs will be awesome, look at ROF" :)

And like I said, now is the time to bitch about the FM, DM etc. before the game enters beta and release versions. The sooner the bitching starts the better overall it will be for the game, with more time to notice and fix it. People always say "calm down, it's only beta" etc. and keep ignoring these issues and suddenly they wake up with a released game that has all these crappy issues because noone wanted to "be negative".

gavagai
Sep-17-2013, 10:15
I agree it might be premature but what is worrisome is mentioned in the previous posts, lack of dev mention of it and the general jerking off of the fanboys at the sight of the game, and if someone noticed it he was shouted at by others. I particularly liked: "I'm certain FMs will be awesome, look at ROF" :)

And like I said, now is the time to bitch about the FM, DM etc. before the game enters beta and release versions. The sooner the bitching starts the better overall it will be for the game, with more time to notice and fix it. People always say "calm down, it's only beta" etc. and keep ignoring these issues and suddenly they wake up with a released game that has all these crappy issues because noone wanted to "be negative".

In terms of historical accuracy relative performance, Rise of Flight has some of the worst FMs I have ever seen in a combat flight sim. The only thing it might compare to is Warbirds 1.x in the '90s when the P-38L out-rolled a 190 and could turn with a Spitfire Mk V.

The thing is that many people do not know enough about WW1 to recognize the problems. With WW2 it is going to be different. Just wait...

ATAG_Bliss
Sep-17-2013, 10:56
In terms of historical accuracy relative performance, Rise of Flight has some of the worst FMs I have ever seen in a combat flight sim. The only thing it might compare to is Warbirds 1.x in the '90s when the P-38L out-rolled a 190 and could turn with a Spitfire Mk V.

The thing is that many people do not know enough about WW1 to recognize the problems. With WW2 it is going to be different. Just wait...

My problem with the whole thing is the developers seem to turn a blind eye towards the FM issues. When numerous people were offering to purchase FM revisions etc., in the hopes they would take place, that is very indicative of just how high on the priority list they are.

If it's like ROF, once it's in the player's hands, the FMs will probably be locked in.

gavagai
Sep-17-2013, 11:11
Over at the RoF forums chill31, who is an engineer, has bought a replica Fokker triplane and is going to use it to gather performance data that would not only be useful for the RoF Dr1, but also as a baseline for other WW1 scouts. On numerous occasions he has offered to help 777 review their FMs (at no charge to them) and all he has met with is silence. Supposedly, that's also one of the reasons he quit the beta tester team.

So sad.:doh:

PFT_Endy
Sep-17-2013, 11:19
Might be a pride issue: "Who the hell is this guy who claims to know FM's better than us?!"

OR

they think that if they overtly acknowledge data on FM from a player, there'll be 100 more coming with other, often contradictory data, each claiming theirs is the one proper. I sort of understand that attiude. Though what they might do is not acknowledge it overtly on the forums but analyze all the provided data internally and perhaps decide to do something about FM's if evidence provided is sufficient. But from my understanding that did not happen in RoF.

gavagai
Sep-17-2013, 11:55
There are only a few aeronautical engineers who post on the RoF forums, and it is pretty easy to tell who they are. Off the top of my head I can think of chill31, piecost, and whocares.

My best guess about RoF FMs: 777 doesn't think it's very important, and most of the customers don't know any better, so f* it. Simhq always writes them a rosy review, so why should they change their ways?