Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN???

[Catseye]

Geeze,
Online.
Tried the startup procedures and it looks like the Hurricanes won't start again as before.

Also, key map is changed for full rich and full lean. They don't work!!

Maybe it's me but I don't think so.

Pretty fed-up with the quality of the fundamentals of the patches. I install them with the thought of "What have they broken now?"

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[JG52Uther]

Have you tried this, posted by Farber:

When the patch cam out today a bunch of us jumped on Storm of War Campaigns as it was the first server patched.

I am not familuar with starting the red fighters much and it was a real pain, Spit Ia started well enough but the Hurri not so well.

Using 90% pitch and 20% gas helped allot.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Geeze,
Also, key map is changed for full rich and full lean. They don't work!!

Maybe it's me but I don't think so.

Based on the patch notes I think it is you.. i.e.


Other flight model and engine changes.
- Corrected the mixture control level on Hurricanes and Spitfires. It is now push forward for Lean, pull back for Rich. With that, moving the throttle lever to idle will return the lever to Rich.


Pretty fed-up with the quality of the fundamentals of the patches. I install them with the thought of "What have they broken now?"
Probably no more fed up than those who write the patch notes only to find out that nobody reads them ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Done! ;)

[Catseye]

Based on the patch notes I think it is you.. i.e.




Probably no more fed up than those who write the patch notes only to find out that nobody reads them ;)


Done! ;)

You are such a piece of work.
Can you get them to start?? If so, tell me how? I bet you can't.
So how do you qualify it's me?? I can read the notes very well thank you and I've been flying this sim it all iterations and I'm no noob. Unless you have empirical data to show it's me best not to continue to be a snotty idiot. You certainly have not corrected me as I politely asked but rather showed your adolescent thinking. Nuff said.

[FG28_Kodiak]

I've the same problem, but why always starts a new thread, use the BUG Thread for describing this issue.:rolleyes:

[Catseye]

I've the same problem, but why always starts a new thread, use the BUG Thread for describing this issue.:rolleyes:

I posted this info BEFORE the bug thread was created.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You are such a piece of work.
Can you get them to start?? If so, tell me how? I bet you can't.
So how do you qualify it's me?? I can read the notes very well thank you and I've been flying this sim it all iterations and I'm no noob. Unless you have empirical data to show it's me best not to continue to be a snotty idiot. You certainly have not corrected me as I politely asked but rather showed your adolescent thinking. Nuff said.
You poor thing..

I know it can be upsetting at times, not being able to get things to work on the first try..

But here is some additional info that might help you out..

From the patch notes..


FM
Conducted a huge amount of work correcting and improving aircraft flight models as well as most engine models.
- Corrected the Merlin engine model.
That and you might want to 'read' JG52Uther re-post of what Farber had to say wrt starting the engines..

Where you can see 'some' people got the engines to start because they had the patience to try a few things before posting here that it was a bug

Good Luck!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Confirm 100oct Hurri does not start.

Mixture control needs to be reversed in the controls menu. My mixture wheel was reversed, so wouldn't start any a/c as the lever back was giving lean.

Reverse your mixture controls and Spits are fine.

The Hurri won't start whatever you do. :(

[Catseye]

Confirm 100oct Hurri does not start.

Mixture control needs to be reversed in the controls menu. My mixture wheel was reversed, so wouldn't start any a/c as the lever back was giving lean.

Reverse your mixture controls and Spits are fine.

The Hurri won't start whatever you do. :(

Hi Dutch:
Interesting.
I have the mixture control set to the throttle back position (default) - are you saying that this is in fact Lean? Or just the key map? I adjusted my settings to conform to full back being rich. I also noticed that you have to have the throttle full open before you can get the mixture control to move. Then when you pull the throttle back, the mixture control snaps back to full rich. Is this now the correct physical way it worked in RL?

SpitII starts fine - other iterations not so for me.

Cheers

[ATAG_Dutch]

Hiya Cats. Yep. My mixture is on an axis, and needed to be reversed to give correct mixture setting to start.

If you're using buttons, whicheverr leaned it out before will now be giving rich, presumably.

I've just found out that I can't start any Hurri at all. Something amiss with all Hurricanes. :(

The physical operation of mixture is correct. Just make sure of your controls in the menu. It won't help with the Hurris tho.

[Catseye]

Hiya Cats. Yep. My mixture is on an axis, and needed to be reversed to give correct mixture setting to start.

If you're using buttons, whicheverr leaned it out before will now be giving rich, presumably.

I've just found out that I can't start any Hurri at all. Something amiss with all Hurricanes. :(

The physical operation of mixture is correct. Just make sure of your controls in the menu. It won't help with the Hurris tho.

Can you get the Spit 1's to start?

[bisher]

Wow aces I see you have the old pat-on-the-back-slap-to-the-face routine down to a science.

It's like two people in one :)

[senseispcc]

.
Spitfire MKI cannot start with a cold engine like the Hurricanes of all types the other Spitfires MKIa and MKIA 100 ost do start the MKIIa I did not try yet.
:rolleyes:

[5./JG27.Farber]

Spit Ia is easiest to start, I found 90% pitch started the others easier. HOWEVER i rarley fly the red fighters so I dont even know what I am doingright let alone wrong! :-P :mad:

[ATAG_Dutch]

Can you get the Spit 1's to start?

Macro just managed it, also Nitrous got a hurri started after 9 mins of cranking the engine.......

[bisher]

Ah but it's like we get two people in one.

'No will not cut off my arm. Okay I will cut off my arm, but I'm not pleased about it.'

[ATAG_Doc]

Macro just managed it, also Nitrous got a hurri started after 9 mins of cranking the engine.......

Only 9 minutes? lol

[ElAurens]

Only 9 minutes? lol

Joseph Lucas, the Prince of Darkness.

:-P

[bw_wolverine]

So here's the question. Is the community going to have the wherewithal to reject this patch while they fix it or are the big servers going to update to the RC anyway?

Maybe they'd hot fix this sooner if they saw no one was bothering to test it for them.

[HorrorRoach]

You poor thing..

I know it can be upsetting at times, not being able to get things to work on the first try..

But here is some additional info that might help you out..

From the patch notes..


That and you might want to 'read' JG52Uther re-post of what Farber had to say wrt starting the engines..

Where you can see 'some' people got the engines to start because they had the patience to try a few things before posting here that it was a bug

Good Luck!



Wow, so we have to read posts on a forum to start a plane? Feel sorry for all the people who don't come here

[Chivas]

Geeze,
Online.
Tried the startup procedures and it looks like the Hurricanes won't start again as before.

Also, key map is changed for full rich and full lean. They don't work!!

Maybe it's me but I don't think so.

Pretty fed-up with the quality of the fundamentals of the patches. I install them with the thought of "What have they broken now?"

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Maybe a better question would have been "Is anyone else having problems starting the Hurricane"? instead of yelling omg "HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN??? ". Then if you didn't find adequate answers you could start screaming about how incompetent the devs are. Even then it would be in poor taste as its still a beta patch, and the reason its called a beta patch is to catch things like this. I would image the final RC patch will include a readme on the starting procedures for each aircraft. Something that would be a waste of time doing until most bugs and procedures are nailed down.

[AbortedMan]

So here's the question. Is the community going to have the balls to reject this patch while they fix it or are the big servers going to update to the RC anyway?

Maybe they'd hot fix this sooner if they saw no one was bothering to test it for them.

I think we know the answer to that question...its the "no balls" solution, by the way...but balls or not, nothing is going to polish this turd any more than it has been.

...at least perusing the forums and reading about the next publicity stunt patch fail that 1C regularly pulls is fun form time to time...almost worth my $50.

[bw_wolverine]

I think we know the answer to that question...its the "no balls" solution, by the way...but balls or not, nothing is going to polish this turd any more than it has been.

...at least perusing the forums and reading about the next publicity stunt patch fail that 1C regularly pulls is fun form time to time...almost worth my $50.

We don't know the answer to it yet, that's why I asked. I haven't had the chance to try the new patch, but if Catseye and the others I've seen post about the issue are having serious issues getting a Hurricane started within 9 minutes, I don't see why we should be switching to this patch.

I personally don't want to have to go back to the 'air start' solution.

Over the next couple of days, we'll certainly find out if there's a reliable start up procedure for these aircraft.

I'm still amazed at the difference in start-up time though between the 109s and the RAF fighters, even when we COULD get the aircraft started and idling. Is it really that quick from start up to clean running in a 109?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Wow, so we have to read posts on a forum to start a plane? Feel sorry for all the people who don't come here
Yes when it comes to the mixture setting being fixed, which resulted in it being reversed one only had to read the initial post by Luiter that contained the links to the patch along with the instructions on how to install it.. But that is to be expected.. As for starting the engines.. No reading of a post was needed, in that the first guy to get em started didn't have a post to read.. All that was needed there was a little trial and error and some patience (9 mins worth).. The latter being a rare commodity these days in the xgen sound byte gimmie gimmie now era.

[bw_wolverine]

Yes when it comes to the mixture setting being fixed, which resulted in it being reversed one only had to read the initial post by Luiter that contained the links to the patch along with the instructions on how to install it.. But that is to be expected.. As for starting the engines.. No reading of a post was needed, in that the first guy to get em started didn't have a post to read.. All that was needed there was a little trial and error and some patience (9 mins worth).. The latter being a rare commodity these days in the xgen sound byte gimmie gimmie now era.

You don't seem to understand. 9 minutes is the time it takes to get the engine started after repeatedly pressing the starter to get the engine to a point where it'll actually start. It's not 9 minutes until "OH! That's how you do it. Voila".

If you want to sit at a desk and press the "I" key over and over for 9 minutes, go ahead. No amount of moving mixture this way or that way, moving fuel to just 11.482895 percent, etc is going to cut down on that time if this bug is in any way like the last one of this nature.

At least this one is ONLY 9 minutes. That one was more like 15. I'm prettttty sure that Battle of Britain pilots didn't run out to their Hurricanes and quickly strap themselves in to have a NAP for a quarter of an hour.

So unless you can record a video that shows:
a) the game starting with the current patch update in the lower right corner
b) jumping into an online server such as ATAG or Storm of War Campaign Server via the menus
c) selecting a Hurricane DH 5-20 or Rotol
and
d) managing to start it within 30 seconds

Unless you can prove all that, I'll take what I've seen with my eyes and done with my hands and heard from my trusted friends over your remarks.

But I won't hold my breath for it. You see, I'm patient like that. :)

I'm not being accusatory or angry in this, btw. I'm honestly asking for a video tutorial if it's as simple as you're making it out. If Catseye can't get the thing started within 9 minutes, then I'm preeettttty sure that I can't. He's a better pilot than I am by a long chalk. Nitrous probably got it because he simply is a stubborn bugger and held on through the rage ;)

[raaaid]

oh what does it matter ill buy next sequel even if still i cant start the game just for the laughs i get here

i love it here makes me look normal :)

[Jugdriver]

i love it here makes me look normal :)

lol.....................

I am going to quote you on that one raaaid

JD
AKA_MAttE

[yobnaf]

Great patch. Love the realistic start up procedures for the planes now. Good work, dev team.

[flyingblind]

Wow, so we have to read posts on a forum to start a plane? Feel sorry for all the people who don't come here


Well, if they didn't come here they wouldn't know about the update so they wouldn't have installed it so they wouldn't have to read a post to find out how to start a plane. If you see what I mean. ;)

[Trumper]

Well, if they didn't come here they wouldn't know about the update so they wouldn't have installed it so they wouldn't have to read a post to find out how to start a plane. If you see what I mean. ;)

Not really ,other forums have posted about the update,i am certain the pre patch patch is not restricted to the few that look on here,not much beta testing if so.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Wolverine wrote:

"At least this one is ONLY 9 minutes. That one was more like 15. I'm prettttty sure that Battle of Britain pilots didn't run out to their Hurricanes and quickly strap themselves in to have a NAP for a quarter of an hour."

+1

The machines were always started and warmed up by the erks before dawn, so they would be ready to scramble at a moment's notice. Sitting on an airfield in the cockpit waiting for a cold Spitfire or Hurricane to warm up is not authentic. The aircraft, upon starting, should already have been warmed up and ready to roll immediately just as the real Spits and Hurries were.

[SlipBall]

I wonder if it would be possible for someone to write a script, on spawn engine temperature so and so. Just wondering out loud here:-P

[senseispcc]

I wonder if it would be possible for someone to write a script, on spawn engine temperature so and so. Just wondering out loud here:-P

.
good could some do it waiting for a correction of the game !?! :rolleyes:;):cool:

[SlipBall]

Seems like there might be a slight chance as a temporary fix.. My knowledge of scripting is very limited, so I have no idea if it would be possible.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You don't seem to understand. 9 minutes is the time it takes to get the engine started after repeatedly pressing the starter to get the engine to a point where it'll actually start. It's not 9 minutes until "OH! That's how you do it. Voila".
Actually you don't seem to understand..

First off no where did I say that 9 min to start the engine is correct..

Now that you understand that, allow me to point out the point I was making and that your missing

That being when ever there is a patch released, within minutes of release there is a swarm of posts of BUGS!

How valid it a few min of testing?

I can not explain it.. But it is as if some people have this need to be the first one in line to point out a BUG

Most of which turn out to be un-true!

For example Game Crashes! for those in a hurry, where as those who took the time realised they had to turn of SLI. That one was found by trial and error, but sadly a lot of the so called bugs are due to the fact that the person didn't even take the time to read the post! The post with the link to the patch that contained the information that would have informed the person that what they are experiencing is NOT a bug. Case in point, the mixture reversal that my initial post in this thread pertained to in response to cat's stating the mixture was broken.

In summary you can fit most if not all beta patch users into one of two category

1) People with no patience
2) People with patience

Which is self evident from the fact that we went from it won't start to it will start after 9 min. Which should not be confused with, as you did, with me saying 9 min to start the engine is correct and thus not a bug. That point of mine is what you failed to understand in my post.

Hope that helps! S!

[Tree_UK]

Actually you don't seem to understand..

First off no where did I say that 9 min to start the engine is correct..

Now that you understand that, allow me to point out the point I was making and that your missing

That being when ever there is a patch released, within minutes of release there is a swarm of posts of BUGS!

How valid it a few min of testing?

I can not explain it.. But it is as if some people have this need to be the first one in line to point out a BUG

Most of which turn out to be un-true!

For example Game Crashes! for those in a hurry, where as those who took the time realised they had to turn of SLI. That one was found by trial and error, but sadly a lot of the so called bugs are due to the fact that the person didn't even take the time to read the post! The post with the link to the patch that contained the information that would have informed the person that what they are experiencing is NOT a bug. Case in point, the mixture reversal that my initial post in this thread pertained to in response to cat's stating the mixture was broken.

In summary you can fit most if not all beta patch users into one of two category

1) People with no patients
2) People with patients

Which is self evident from the fact that we went from it won't start to it will start after 9 min. Which should not be confused with, as you did, with me saying 9 min to start the engine is correct and thus not a bug. That point of mine is what you failed to understand in my post.

Hope that helps! S!

ACE I love your backtracking post above...lol.

However, on this occasion the OP was right, the Hurricane start procedure is porked, but you jumped in again to rescue the dev's and attacked the OP. It is you who have no 'patience' (note the correct spelling), you should of researched it yourself before jumping in, I am sure an apology to the OP would go some way to giving you back at least a little credibility, though to most it will seem once again you have made a complete fool of yourself.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

However, on this occasion the OP was right, the Hurricane start procedure is porked, but you jumped in again to rescue the dev's and attacked the OP.
Ah Tree.. No need talking to you so allow me to point out to others where your twisting of the truth..

First thing to not here folks is that Tree is trying to imply that in my 1st post I said there was nothing wrong with the Hurri start procedure..

Which is not true

For those who actully read the OP, they will note that cat brought up several issues.. One being his inability to start the engine, the other being the mixture issues..

Now for anyone who has read my 1st post they will note that I made no comment as to engine starting issue, my comment had to do with the mixture issue, where I told cat I 'think' it is him in respose to him saying he does not 'think' it is him. Where I posted a quote from Luithers post pointing out the mixture levers were fixxed in this patch, which in turn reversed the way the responded.

So, nice try Tree!

Your twisting of the facts may fool some, and those who want to belive, but for those who actully read what I said know your just making stuff up to keep the lie alive!

[JG53Frankyboy]

I wonder if it would be possible for someone to write a script, on spawn engine temperature so and so. Just wondering out loud here:-P

well, if you cant start the engine, you cant warm it up..........

[Catseye]

Maybe a better question would have been "Is anyone else having problems starting the Hurricane"? instead of yelling omg "HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN??? ". Then if you didn't find adequate answers you could start screaming about how incompetent the devs are. Even then it would be in poor taste as its still a beta patch, and the reason its called a beta patch is to catch things like this. I would image the final RC patch will include a readme on the starting procedures for each aircraft. Something that would be a waste of time doing until most bugs and procedures are nailed down.

I have confidence in my own evaluation of how and if aircraft start. I tested them all before posting. It doesn't need a readme to understand startup procedures by us the outside beta team. By now, I'm sure you have realized that it is a serious issue disclosed in caps. Beta patch or not, it is an example of very poor and in fact inadequate quality evaluation before release. ie., they broke what was working before and it should have been caught by the business managers. In fact, since they were trying to "fix" issues around mixture, it seems they didn't even test all paramaters after making changes. Very poor techinical as well as business procedures.

I, like many others are fed up with half-baked results - especially ones like the HURRICANE NOT STARTING AGAIN!

Caps are an indication of recognizing the incompetence of releasing a so called "release Candidate", of a Beta of a Beta ad infinitum. . . . A raised voice of incredulity!

While they may be improving frame-rate and other issues, the release of this candidate with this major flaw is beyond words for those of us who have been with this sim and the original IL2 since the beginning.

I do recognize that all efforts are being made for the next release, and that any improvements to this version are to solidify the engine for that new release and that changes to Cliffs itself is one big final patch to cover issues identified over the past year or so. Perhaps the amount of concentration directed towards Cliffs is so passive that it doesn't warrant closer scrutiny before release?

[SlipBall]

well, if you cant start the engine, you cant warm it up..........

On spawn engine already heated was my question:grin:

[bw_wolverine]

I'll just say this in response:

This is a release candidate patch from devs who have stated very clearly that they are not putting any more priority or time into fixing Cliffs of Dover until the sequel is released (IF a sequel is released). There will be NO MORE fixing after they publish their last patch. THIS patch.

Yes, it's going to be looked at and tested (by us for free btw) and hopefully these issues will be corrected in the final RC patch but...

How many patches have we had where something gets broken every single time? What confidence is there that even when they tweak and tune this RC patch that something ELSE won't break? With this patch it's the Hurricane engines (again).

So in a system where every released patch breaks something or is unfinished how can there ever be a LAST one where suddenly everything works?

We're all just hoping that the RC patch breaks or doesn't fix something we can live with at this point I think. So I think I can understand Catseye's frustration and post here.

This whole saga of Cliffs of Dover is an exercise in frustration for the faithful. It's pushing everyone to breaking point, some more than others.

We'll keep testing and playing this patch release candidate but seriously think about the fact that this was a bug that got FIXED in the last patch and is back again. And then consider that 1C didn't release this patch as another beta to test, they felt it was good enough to release as a release candidate patch. How does THAT make sense? Saying it's a release candidate patch is just inviting people to lose their minds over the bugs. It should have been pushed as another beta.

[Catseye]

Wolverine wrote:

The machines were always started and warmed up by the erks before dawn, so they would be ready to scramble at a moment's notice. Sitting on an airfield in the cockpit waiting for a cold Spitfire or Hurricane to warm up is not authentic. The aircraft, upon starting, should already have been warmed up and ready to roll immediately just as the real Spits and Hurries were.

Hi Snapper,
Interesting observation. This would be a nice option in mission building parameters. Some aircraft warmed up for scramble. Others starting cold for sorties. Interesting.

Cheers

[bw_wolverine]

Bounder and I were discussing the possibility of getting the aircraft spawned in with water temp of 40+ degrees and oil temp of 20+ to start. It would very simply solve the issue and I'm not sure why they've never done it.

As Snapper said, they should be spawning ALL stationary Hurricanes and Spitfires at warmed up temps. 80 degrees on the water and 50 to 60 degrees on the oil so that they can be opened up and flown right away. Pilots were expected to take 3 minutes from sitting in a chair beside the dispersal hut to being in the air. This has so far never been possible to my mind.

[Chivas]

I have confidence in my own evaluation of how and if aircraft start. I tested them all before posting. It doesn't need a readme to understand startup procedures by us the outside beta team. By now, I'm sure you have realized that it is a serious issue disclosed in caps. Beta patch or not, it is an example of very poor and in fact inadequate quality evaluation before release. ie., they broke what was working before and it should have been caught by the business managers. In fact, since they were trying to "fix" issues around mixture, it seems they didn't even test all paramaters after making changes. Very poor techinical as well as business procedures.

I, like many others are fed up with half-baked results - especially ones like the HURRICANE NOT STARTING AGAIN!

Caps are an indication of recognizing the incompetence of releasing a so called "release Candidate", of a Beta of a Beta ad infinitum. . . . A raised voice of incredulity!

While they may be improving frame-rate and other issues, the release of this candidate with this major flaw is beyond words for those of us who have been with this sim and the original IL2 since the beginning.

I do recognize that all efforts are being made for the next release, and that any improvements to this version are to solidify the engine for that new release and that changes to Cliffs itself is one big final patch to cover issues identified over the past year or so. Perhaps the amount of concentration directed towards Cliffs is so passive that it doesn't warrant closer scrutiny before release?

Again some people miss the whole point of releasing a Beta patch for Testing. If the development had the resources and every computer setup known to man they wouldn't release a BETA patch for the community to test. The devs must roll their eyes is disbelief when someone jumps up and down yelling.... I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE. But then again they already understand the negative side of involving the community when some will never understand the development process. I'm sure the good has outweighed the bad and they will continue to use our resources to help build the series.

[Tree_UK]

Again some people miss the whole point of releasing a Beta patch for Testing. If the development had the resources and every computer setup known to man they wouldn't release a BETA patch for the community to test. The devs must roll their eyes is disbelief when someone jumps up and down yelling.... I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE. But then again they already understand the negative side of involving the community when some will never understand the development process. I'm sure the good has outweighed the bad and they will continue to use our resources to help build the series.

So its just certain PC configurations that are causing the Hurricane not to start, sorry I wasn't aware of that, I apologise.

[Mysticpuma]

Again some people miss the whole point of releasing a Beta patch for Testing. If the development had the resources and every computer setup known to man they wouldn't release a BETA patch for the community to test. The devs must roll their eyes is disbelief when someone jumps up and down yelling.... I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE. But then again they already understand the negative side of involving the community when some will never understand the development process. I'm sure the good has outweighed the bad and they will continue to use our resources to help build the series.

Which is why I urge them to reply to this thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34643

+1 replies appreciated in the above thread. MP

No point in Beta testing and bug reports if they are not even read!

[5./JG27.Farber]

Bounder and I were discussing the possibility of getting the aircraft spawned in with water temp of 40+ degrees and oil temp of 20+ to start. It would very simply solve the issue and I'm not sure why they've never done it.

As Snapper said, they should be spawning ALL stationary Hurricanes and Spitfires at warmed up temps. 80 degrees on the water and 50 to 60 degrees on the oil so that they can be opened up and flown right away. Pilots were expected to take 3 minutes from sitting in a chair beside the dispersal hut to being in the air. This has so far never been possible to my mind.

+1 wtf!

Why is this the way for red fighters, I have NEVER got my head round this one. Even when they actually start...

[Force10]

when some will never understand the development process.

I guess I have been thinking of the developement process wrongly then. I was under the impression when you spend a month or two fixing bugs in the code...say fixing a mixture issue...you would then internally test your fixes by jumping in a plane and checking it. If someone had spent 1 hour to just jump in the planes and attempt to start them, they might have noticed a problem.

[Chivas]

So its just certain PC configurations that are causing the Hurricane not to start, sorry I wasn't aware of that, I apologise.

Again you'll twist anyone words to suit your appalling negative agenda. If thats not the case try reading my post again, and note the resource comment in the same sentence.

[Chivas]

Which is why I urge them to reply to this thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34643

+1 replies appreciated in the above thread. MP

No point in Beta testing and bug reports if they are not even read!

Exactly how do you know they aren't reading the test reports.

[ATAG_Snapper]

Bounder and I were discussing the possibility of getting the aircraft spawned in with water temp of 40+ degrees and oil temp of 20+ to start. It would very simply solve the issue and I'm not sure why they've never done it.

As Snapper said, they should be spawning ALL stationary Hurricanes and Spitfires at warmed up temps. 80 degrees on the water and 50 to 60 degrees on the oil so that they can be opened up and flown right away. Pilots were expected to take 3 minutes from sitting in a chair beside the dispersal hut to being in the air. This has so far never been possible to my mind.

I've PM'd the ATAG admin to have a look at this. For instance, when you go to Single Player -- Quick Missions -- Cross Country, any aircraft you select, including Hurricanes, are sitting on the airfield with the engine ticking over, temps indicating a warmed up engine. It would appear to be a spawning mode, which could probably be determined using the FMB. If that's the case, then it probably would be applicable to online servers as well, I should think.

I just talked informally with a few TS Red pilots a few minutes ago, just to get their thoughts. A couple of Blennie pilots figured they'd rather stick with the manual start up procedure as is. One of them suggested that coastal airfields could have the ready-to-scramble aircraft (engines running, warmed up), while the inland airfields stick with manual start ups (except for the hard-to-start Hurricanes, off course). A side benefit -- a major one -- would be that the RAF machines wouldn't be as vulnerable to airfield suppression (vulching) attacks if they were ready to push off upon spawning. It would be more exciting taking off during a strafing attack than just sitting there cringing! LOL

Let me know your thoughts.

[MadTommy]

One of them suggested that coastal airfields could have the ready-to-scramble aircraft (engines running, warmed up), while the inland airfields stick with manual start ups (except for the hard-to-start Hurricanes, off course). A side benefit -- a major one -- would be that the RAF machines wouldn't be as vulnerable to airfield suppression (vulching) attacks if they were ready to push off upon spawning. It would be more exciting taking off during a strafing attack than just sitting there cringing! LOL

Let me know your thoughts.

Sounds like a excellent and realistic compromise.. suiting all tastes.

[Chivas]

I guess I have been thinking of the developement process wrongly then. I was under the impression when you spend a month or two fixing bugs in the code...say fixing a mixture issue...you would then internally test your fixes by jumping in a plane and checking it. If someone had spent 1 hour to just jump in the planes and attempt to start them, they might have noticed a problem.

Again I'm not aware of the priorities they gave their beta test team. If they thought they could find every bug they wouldn't bother sending out a beta for us test. If you don't think its complicated, try recreating the Battle of Britain on a computer, and let me know how you make out. You could elicit some help from Rowans BOB developers and the dedicated WOV BDG group developers/modders. The sim has been a WIP for the last 15 years and still trying to find away to develop a working multiplayer or even add an aircraft.

[raaaid]

good job beta testers finding the bug wont be in the steam patch

[Tree_UK]

I guess I have been thinking of the developement process wrongly then. I was under the impression when you spend a month or two fixing bugs in the code...say fixing a mixture issue...you would then internally test your fixes by jumping in a plane and checking it. If someone had spent 1 hour to just jump in the planes and attempt to start them, they might have noticed a problem.

Yes I agree 100%, I have raised this previously, it seems that no-one test any of the patches before release, its truly incredible that after already releasing a patch where u couldn't start an aircraft they then repeat it and once again introduce as many bugs as they have fixed - but old bugs??? Its ameteur work.

[Tree_UK]

Again I'm not aware of the priorities they gave their beta test team. If they thought they could find every bug they wouldn't bother sending out a beta for us test. If you don't think its complicated, try recreating the Battle of Britain on a computer, and let me know how you make out. You could elicit some help from Rowans BOB developers and the dedicated WOV BDG group developers/modders. The sim has been a WIP for the last 15 years and still trying to find away to develop a working multiplayer or even add an aircraft.

Chivas this is what they do for a living, and its shoddy at best, your argument is completley moot.

[Mysticpuma]

Exactly how do you know they aren't reading the test reports.

Because they already said! Not making that up, it was already posted before by the dev's.

MP

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Again some people miss the whole point of releasing a Beta patch for Testing. If the development had the resources and every computer setup known to man they wouldn't release a BETA patch for the community to test. The devs must roll their eyes is disbelief when someone jumps up and down yelling.... I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE. But then again they already understand the negative side of involving the community when some will never understand the development process. I'm sure the good has outweighed the bad and they will continue to use our resources to help build the series.
Agreed 100%

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Again you'll twist anyone words to suit your appalling negative agenda.
Quoted for truth

[Catseye]

Again some people miss the whole point of releasing a Beta patch for Testing. If the development had the resources and every computer setup known to man they wouldn't release a BETA patch for the community to test. The devs must roll their eyes is disbelief when someone jumps up and down yelling.... I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE. But then again they already understand the negative side of involving the community when some will never understand the development process. I'm sure the good has outweighed the bad and they will continue to use our resources to help build the series.

Hi Chivas,
Beta patches are to test and correct issues - not to re-introduce already fixed issues. If you are implying that I do not understand the development process, let me clarify for you. I've been in senior IT management for many years at the corporate level, including the development of very large business programs from scratch. I know very well the issues involved with the technical side, the business side and managing customer as well as executive expectations. You should witness some of the inside SHOUTING that happens when deliverables are not met that impact the organizations bottom line.

As a client, I don't really care what issues the techs are having, nor is the client expected to. What I and clients expect is a deliverable on time and on or under budget. To that end, I've managed processes and lead teams establishing and following guidelines to measure, check and adjust issues to ensure that the deliverable is met. Ic apparently do not have these procedures in place as evidenced by the quality of their releases of beta patches wherein previously resolved show stopper issues are re-released.

Please don't expand my post to one of omg as you put it, or imply that I stated that , "I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE". because that was not stated not was it implied. What was indicated in caps was a very specific portion of a title and in my opinion justified. Note: the text inside was in upper and lower case. CAPS in a heading do not necessarily indicate shouting. It is an indication to draw attention. A complete posting in CAPS is shouting! Big difference. So to that end you have mis-interpreted or assumed an incorrect tone in the original post.

I also believe that open beta testing is not the way to go. Closed groups have been shown to be more efficient at producing timely and effective results. Having limited resources is not an excuse for a flawed deliverable. If the checks and balances are in place, it would mitigate the client reaction you are now seeing.

The good does outway the bad. But the bad is very bad. As for the Devs utilizing our resources as beta testers . . . . . there are a lot of issues put forth by the "testers" with many questioning if the Devs really look at them. I like the term "using" because that is exactly what is taking place. We are being used!

I sincerely hope for the success of this series. I do hope that they get the funding to proceed. I look forward to participating in online events with large groups. But my patience has run out! 1C is the team that has cried "Wolf" far too many times and made too many promises too many times for me to meekly accept what is being dished out.

I miss OLEG!

[Tree_UK]

Hi Chivas,
Beta patches are to test and correct issues - not to re-introduce already fixed issues. If you are implying that I do not understand the development process, let me clarify for you. I've been in senior IT management for many years at the corporate level, including the development of very large business programs from scratch. I know very well the issues involved with the technical side, the business side and managing customer as well as executive expectations. You should witness some of the inside SHOUTING that happens when deliverables are not met that impact the organizations bottom line.

As a client, I don't really care what issues the techs are having, nor is the client expected to. What I and clients expect is a deliverable on time and on or under budget. To that end, I've managed processes and lead teams establishing and following guidelines to measure, check and adjust issues to ensure that the deliverable is met. Ic apparently do not have these procedures in place as evidenced by the quality of their releases of beta patches wherein previously resolved show stopper issues are re-released.

Please don't expand my post to one of omg as you put it, or imply that I stated that , "I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE". because that was not stated not was it implied. What was indicated in caps was a very specific portion of a title and in my opinion justified. Note: the text inside was in upper and lower case. CAPS in a heading do not necessarily indicate shouting. It is an indication to draw attention. A complete posting in CAPS is shouting! Big difference. So to that end you have mis-interpreted or assumed an incorrect tone in the original post.

I also believe that open beta testing is not the way to go. Closed groups have been shown to be more efficient at producing timely and effective results. Having limited resources is not an excuse for a flawed deliverable. If the checks and balances are in place, it would mitigate the client reaction you are now seeing.

The good does outway the bad. But the bad is very bad. As for the Devs utilizing our resources as beta testers . . . . . there are a lot of issues put forth by the "testers" with many questioning if the Devs really look at them. I like the term "using" because that is exactly what is taking place. We are being used!

I sincerely hope for the success of this series. I do hope that they get the funding to proceed. I look forward to participating in online events with large groups. But my patience has run out! 1C is the team that has cried "Wolf" far too many times and made too many promises too many times for me to meekly accept what is being dished out.

I miss OLEG!

Good post Cat, unfortunatley they cannot see the wood for the trees that they can fly through. :-P

[Chivas]

Hi Chivas,
Beta patches are to test and correct issues - not to re-introduce already fixed issues. If you are implying that I do not understand the development process, let me clarify for you. I've been in senior IT management for many years at the corporate level, including the development of very large business programs from scratch. I know very well the issues involved with the technical side, the business side and managing customer as well as executive expectations. You should witness some of the inside SHOUTING that happens when deliverables are not met that impact the organizations bottom line.

As a client, I don't really care what issues the techs are having, nor is the client expected to. What I and clients expect is a deliverable on time and on or under budget. To that end, I've managed processes and lead teams establishing and following guidelines to measure, check and adjust issues to ensure that the deliverable is met. Ic apparently do not have these procedures in place as evidenced by the quality of their releases of beta patches wherein previously resolved show stopper issues are re-released.

Please don't expand my post to one of omg as you put it, or imply that I stated that , "I FOUND A BUG AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW STUPID THE DEVS ARE". because that was not stated not was it implied. What was indicated in caps was a very specific portion of a title and in my opinion justified. Note: the text inside was in upper and lower case. CAPS in a heading do not necessarily indicate shouting. It is an indication to draw attention. A complete posting in CAPS is shouting! Big difference. So to that end you have mis-interpreted or assumed an incorrect tone in the original post.

I also believe that open beta testing is not the way to go. Closed groups have been shown to be more efficient at producing timely and effective results. Having limited resources is not an excuse for a flawed deliverable. If the checks and balances are in place, it would mitigate the client reaction you are now seeing.

The good does outway the bad. But the bad is very bad. As for the Devs utilizing our resources as beta testers . . . . . there are a lot of issues put forth by the "testers" with many questioning if the Devs really look at them. I like the term "using" because that is exactly what is taking place. We are being used!

I sincerely hope for the success of this series. I do hope that they get the funding to proceed. I look forward to participating in online events with large groups. But my patience has run out! 1C is the team that has cried "Wolf" far too many times and made too many promises too many times for me to meekly accept what is being dished out.

I miss OLEG!

If you understood the beta process you would realize that past issues can come back when the devs are constantly rewriting and adding code. Again its the whole point of releasing another beta test patch, and not the final patch.

I like Oleg as much as the next guy, and also wish he hadn't left, but highly doubt the project would be much further along. Oleg would let the community know what the development was trying to achieve far more than Luthier, with the caveat that this is a WIP and features would be added when system resources allowed during the series. People still don't seem to understand that, proven by all the "you promised" posts. Luthier has learned its better to say very little. Yes the development sold the sim without mentioning its still a beta, but that doesn't change the fact that its still a "Beta".

[Tree_UK]

If you understood the beta process you would realize that past issues can come back when the devs are constantly rewriting and adding code. Again its the whole point of releasing another beta test patch, and not the final patch.

I like Oleg as much as the next guy, and also wish he hadn't left, but highly doubt the project would be much further along. Oleg would let the community know what the development was trying to achieve far more than Luthier, with the caveat that this is a WIP and features would be added when system resources allowed during the series. People still don't seem to understand that, proven by all the "you promised" posts. Luthier has learned its better to say very little. Yes the development sold the sim without mentioning its still a beta, but that doesn't change the fact that its still a "Beta".

Then surley if this is the case you would expect all be the most foolish to test that the same old problems haven't been reintroduced before releasing the patch, otherwise we just go round and round in circles like we have been doing for the last 19 months, I'm sorry Chivas but on this I completely disagree with you.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Oleg would let the community know what the development was trying to achieve far more than Luthier, with the caveat that this is a WIP and features would be added when system resources allowed during the series. People still don't seem to understand that, proven by all the "you promised" posts. Luthier has learned its better to say very little.
Ding..
Ding..
Ding..

And the ironic part of that is most of those who say "you promised"

Are the same ones that wonder why Luthier does not post here more often! ;)

[Catseye]

If you understood the beta process you would realize that past issues can come back when the devs are constantly rewriting and adding code. Again its the whole point of releasing another beta test patch, and not the final patch.
a".

Geeze Chivas,
"If you understood the beta process . . . . . "
I really think that you have a reading comprehension issue . . . . or a communication problem wherin you are not able to prepare a sentence or comment without insulting the intelligence of the other posters. You assume so many things about others without facts.

You just don't get it! The beta process is to eliminate problems. If problems are re-introduced, they are caught as a part of the process of evaluation of the changes made before giving it to the testers. You check your work!! It's not up to the testers to check the programmers work!

The startup issue is not just a minimal issue. It is a game-breaker issue! Who the heck was asleep at the wheel on this one?

If you are going to play around with the mixture settings, one would think that someone went through the process of checking to see if the aircraft would start or even fly and that the mixture settings really worked in action.

I'm putting this one to bed. The issues speak for themselves.

[Hood]

Ding..
Ding..
Ding..

And the ironic part of that is most of those who say "you promised"

Are the same ones that wonder why Luthier does not post here more often! ;)

They don't wonder, they know why. It's hard to regain trust and credibility once it's gone.

[MadBlaster]

is it possible they model flooding the carb? if hurry throttle now sets automatically to full rich when throttle is at zero position, but if you set it to like 50% throttle then it floods?

it's pretty funny. all these people buy new pc to beta test clod for 19 months. then when the patch finally gets done, their pc is obsolete and the hurry won't start. he, he. sorry, it's kinda funny at this point.:grin::-P

[trademe900]

it's pretty funny. all these people buy new pc to beta test clod for 19 months. then when the patch finally gets done, their pc is obsolete and the hurry won't start. he, he. sorry, it's kinda funny at this point.:grin::-P

Hahaha, that is not an exaggeration too. What a f***** crying shame.

[CaptainDoggles]

If you understood the beta process you would realize that past issues can come back when the devs are constantly rewriting and adding code. Again its the whole point of releasing another beta test patch, and not the final patch

Chivas, this is not a Beta any longer. It's a "Release Candidate". Release Candidates are not supposed to have serious bugs.

Obviously it is YOU who does not understand the lifecycle of a piece of software.

[zapatista]

I guess I have been thinking of the developement process wrongly then. I was under the impression when you spend a month or two fixing bugs in the code...say fixing a mixture issue...you would then internally test your fixes by jumping in a plane and checking it. If someone had spent 1 hour to just jump in the planes and attempt to start them, they might have noticed a problem.

i think the whole context is a little different in this case

as was already stated over 9 months ago, work on CoD had/has essentially stopped, and their main focus was rebuild/create a new gfx and game engine while simultaneously working on BoM. if BoM is not released on schedule this time and proves to be a relative success, then the whole project and series is folded and they close their doors (have a guess at the amount of whining then, and the glee and joy from people like tree)

the last beta patch, and largely this current RC, are primarily the beta introduction of the major progress milestones of the new gfx engine, with a few critical fixes for CoD added (like the CTD's etc). the "comprehensive fix of major CoD problems" has/is not included in this, there are some partially tested and some quick hurried CoD fixes included, but most of that hasnt gone through an orderly in-house testing process (which the gfx engine fixes have by all indications)

my main concern is that the cluster of perpetually negative people here (not you specifically) and the disgruntled and frustrated newcomers swept up in that mindset, are so limited in only spewing out aggressive and rude "negative feedback" , that as a result it will collectively be responsible for missing the boat in getting the many badly needed fixes for CoD included in the final patch. what we should instead be focused on is to present the major bugs and missing features (AI not working etc..) in a way that makes it easier for luthier to deal with and setting priorities in their fixes (dont expect him to wade through long winded threads that are full of bickering and negative jibes, neither expect him to go looking at other websites to get "outside" input. its largely up to the russian and english CoD forum users to provide them with that information in a way that makes it easier for luthier, and at least for our forum it is obvious this does not exist (no idea what the russian forum is like)

[LoBiSoMeM]

Boring...

How can i start red fighters?

If all the fanboys here can't explain me how, i'll assume that dev team release a porked patch, sorry to say... No excuses for such flaw don't be adressed BEFORE the release, it's not a "minor" bug, it's a HUGE, GIANT bug!

Simples as that!

[CaptainDoggles]

i think the whole context is a little different in this case

as was already stated over 9 months ago, work on CoD had/has essentially stopped, and their main focus was rebuild/create a new gfx and game engine while simultaneously working on BoM. if BoM is not released on schedule this time and proves to be a relative success, then the whole project and series is folded and they close their doors (have a guess at the amount of whining then, and the glee and joy from people like tree)

the last beta patch, and largely this current RC, are primarily the beta introduction of the major progress milestones of the new gfx engine, with a few critical fixes for CoD added (like the CTD's etc). the "comprehensive fix of major CoD problems" has/is not included in this, there are some partially tested and some quick hurried CoD fixes included, but most of that hasnt gone through an orderly in-house testing process (which the gfx engine fixes have by all indications)

my main concern is that the cluster of perpetually negative people here (not you specifically) and the disgruntled and frustrated newcomers swept up in that mindset, are so limited in only spewing out aggressive and rude "negative feedback" , that as a result it will collectively be responsible for missing the boat in getting the many badly needed fixes for CoD included in the final patch. what we should instead be focused on is to present the major bugs and missing features (AI not working etc..) in a way that makes it easier for luthier to deal with and setting priorities in their fixes (dont expect him to wade through long winded threads that are full of bickering and negative jibes, neither expect him to go looking at other websites to get "outside" input. its largely up to the russian and english CoD forum users to provide them with that information in a way that makes it easier for luthier, and at least for our forum it is obvious this does not exist (no idea what the russian forum is like)

Why do you continue to assert that it's somehow the community's fault if CLOD doesn't get fixed or if MG goes under?

The game is bad. They deserve negative feedback.

If the sequel is good, then they will get the positive feedback that they deserve.

It's not the community's responsibility to fix CLOD. That's what the developers get paid for. The fact that we had to set up a "community bugtracker" should be viewed as a huge embarassment for Maddox Games.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Boring...

How can i start red fighters?

If all the fanboys here can't explain me how, i'll assume that dev team release a porked patch, sorry to say... No excuses for such flaw don't be adressed BEFORE the release, it's not a "minor" bug, it's a HUGE, GIANT bug!

Simples as that!

I need tho quote myself, because i really want to start the engines of red fighters...

Fanboys, it's possible? Tell me how!

By the way, i love the Su-26 and general performance increase, but we still have particles issues... :(

[Chivas]

Chivas, this is not a Beta any longer. It's a "Release Candidate". Release Candidates are not supposed to have serious bugs.

Obviously it is YOU who does not understand the lifecycle of a piece of software.

Unbelievable.....If it were the Release Candidate it would be sent to Steam for download. This is still a beta patch of a possible RC path, sent out to the community for testing.

[Chivas]

Geeze Chivas,
"If you understood the beta process . . . . . "
I really think that you have a reading comprehension issue . . . . or a communication problem wherin you are not able to prepare a sentence or comment without insulting the intelligence of the other posters. You assume so many things about others without facts.

You just don't get it! The beta process is to eliminate problems. If problems are re-introduced, they are caught as a part of the process of evaluation of the changes made before giving it to the testers. You check your work!! It's not up to the testers to check the programmers work!

The startup issue is not just a minimal issue. It is a game-breaker issue! Who the heck was asleep at the wheel on this one?

If you are going to play around with the mixture settings, one would think that someone went through the process of checking to see if the aircraft would start or even fly and that the mixture settings really worked in action.

I'm putting this one to bed. The issues speak for themselves.

When you wake up, asks some friends what beta testing is. Then you might not be so incredulous when you find errors and bugs, while beta testing.

[furbs]

When you wake up, asks some friends what beta testing is. Then you might not be so incredulous when you find errors and bugs, while beta testing.

Chivas, i find most of your posts pretty fair and reasonable, even if a little "rose tinted" but on this issue i think your just being blinkered and stubborn.

Its ok to say the devs made a mistake, they wont cry.

In the process of coding the mixtures and start up procedure, the person making the changes must of a some point said "its done, finished Luthier"

How did they know they had "finished" with out testing the changes he/she made?

You make changes to the start ups but dont try and start the planes yourself in game?

Come on Chivas...

[MadTommy]

Unbelievable.....If it were the Release Candidate it would be sent to Steam for download. This is still a beta patch of a possible RC path, sent out to the community for testing.

Incorrect.. Release Candidate.. is just that a candidate. Not a release version.

When you wake up, asks some friends what beta testing is. Then you might not be so incredulous when you find errors and bugs, while beta testing.

The patch released was released under the title " Friday, September 28 - Patch Release Candidate and Su-26!".

You are just making an assumption to suit your own ends.

Why you feel the need to defend the presence of glaring bugs is not easy to understand. Let the bug be reported and move on.

If you understood software development you would know that development starts, then an alpha build is generated, this progresses to a beta build. In both these stages the developers know bugs will exist. But to a lesser extend in beta than alpha. Then when the developer hopes has has solved all the bugs a RC is released to receive feedback and to catch any bugs that remain. The bugs in a RC are normally hard to find and only located when the software is put out to a very number of users.

I'm sorry but not being able to start a plane in a plane simulator is NOT an bug that should be in a RC or even a beta patch. That is something that should not make it out of alpha stage.

[LoBiSoMeM]

I'm sorry but not being able to start a plane in a plane simulator is NOT an bug that should be in a RC or even a beta patch. That is something that should not make it out of alpha stage.

+1. It's just that.

Now the fanboys can PLEASE tell me if i can start RAF fighters engines?

[SlipBall]

Chivas, i find most of your posts pretty fair and reasonable, even if a little "rose tinted" but on this issue i think your just being blinkered and stubborn.

Its ok to say the devs made a mistake, they wont cry.

In the process of coding the mixtures and start up procedure, the person making the changes must of a some point said "its done, finished Luthier"

How did they know they had "finished" with out testing the changes he/she made?

You make changes to the start ups but dont try and start the planes yourself in game?

Come on Chivas...


I have to agree here there can be but one explanation, the work was not tested.

[Chivas]

Then surley if this is the case you would expect all be the most foolish to test that the same old problems haven't been reintroduced before releasing the patch, otherwise we just go round and round in circles like we have been doing for the last 19 months, I'm sorry Chivas but on this I completely disagree with you.

Its your right to disagree, but that doesn't make you right. I don't know why people can't understand the complexity of the task. If the game was "finished" and it was just a matter of fixing bugs it would be an easier task, BUT they are not just fixing bugs, they are also optimizing code, and adding code to further refine features. ANY code change whether its to optimize, fix bugs, or finish features, can cause bugs in related and unrelated ways. The developers obviously sent out another beta patch to the community, not an RC to Steam, to help test and find bugs, why people are incredulous when they do find them is beyond me. Its frankly quite disconcerting, you gotta hope they are just trolling.

[RickRuski]

Ace,

Don't know if you expect us with multi card setups to have to turn off what we consider a good feature with our systems or not, but this patch is as Tree says is porked. It reveals one major thing to me that no one in house is doing any pre-release testing. If they were, a feature like Sli causing CTD would become obvious. So I see it as this, they have given us a plane that has no relevance to the Battle of Britain years and once again crashed Sli/Crossfire, and given us a patch for us to find their mistakes. My god patiance is running pretty thin for most of us now. For me this patch is a dog, I've gone back one step with patches. At least I have Sli working with that. If the development team haven't got red faces by now then maybe they all carry white sticks and wear dark glasses.

Just seen this from Luthier in his replies to questions asked, typical evasive answer.


4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.

Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

[planespotter]

Its your right to disagree, but that doesn't make you right. I don't know why people can't understand the complexity of the task. If the game was "finished" and it was just a matter of fixing bugs it would be an easier task, BUT they are not just fixing bugs, they are also optimizing code, and adding code to further refine features. ANY code change whether its to optimize, fix bugs, or finish features, can cause bugs in related and unrelated ways. The developers obviously sent out another beta patch to the community, not an RC to Steam, to help test and find bugs, why people are incredulous when they do find them is beyond me. Its frankly quite disconcerting, you gotta hope they are just trolling.

This debate just silly. You are all fleas on the back ofccdog debating why the dog took a dump.

The fact: the dog took a dump.

The reality: if this patch was candidate for release, it is a stinky dump.

[Chivas]

Chivas, i find most of your posts pretty fair and reasonable, even if a little "rose tinted" but on this issue i think your just being blinkered and stubborn.

Its ok to say the devs made a mistake, they wont cry.

In the process of coding the mixtures and start up procedure, the person making the changes must of a some point said "its done, finished Luthier"

How did they know they had "finished" with out testing the changes he/she made?

You make changes to the start ups but dont try and start the planes yourself in game?

Come on Chivas...

Anything could have happened after/if the guy tested the start procedure, the lead programmer may have optimized code in one feature, and that change could have porked another feature. Thats the whole point of releasing another beta patch for the community to test. If they could test everything, they wouldn't bother sending the beta to the community, they'd just send it to Steam when they finished, but we'd be waiting alot longer for the Steam RC.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, sent some crash dumps to them if that is of any help. Had first crash for ages now and it actually generated a dump file.

[jimbop]

Its your right to disagree, but that doesn't make you right. I don't know why people can't understand the complexity of the task. If the game was "finished" and it was just a matter of fixing bugs it would be an easier task, BUT they are not just fixing bugs, they are also optimizing code, and adding code to further refine features. ANY code change whether its to optimize, fix bugs, or finish features, can cause bugs in related and unrelated ways. The developers obviously sent out another beta patch to the community, not an RC to Steam, to help test and find bugs, why people are incredulous when they do find them is beyond me. Its frankly quite disconcerting, you gotta hope they are just trolling.

Chivas, they won't send "an RC to Steam" at all. That will be the actual release, not a release candidate. Alpha > Beta > Release Candidate > Release. Pretty straightforward.

A plane that doesn't start in a flight sim is about as obvious an error as it is conceivable to think of whether it be beta, RC or a final release. Starting the planes is kind of the point of a flight sim, isn't it?

But this is just pointless semantics. It will (hopefully) be fixed so what does it matter? I doubt anyone is shocked by the ineptitude of the dev team so the discussion will have little impact.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, look at the coding issue from another standpoint too. How many ORIGINAL coders are working on the game code at the moment? Weren't the team pretty much renewed at some point? So if the new coders come and work on another person's code it can be a nightmare if it has not been documented well. Maybe has taken the team some time to figure out the coding first IF the previous coder has not left any info what and how..what do you think? ;)

[Chivas]

Incorrect.. Release Candidate.. is just that a candidate. Not a release version.



The patch released was released under the title " Friday, September 28 - Patch Release Candidate and Su-26!".

You are just making an assumption to suit your own ends.

Why you feel the need to defend the presence of glaring bugs is not easy to understand. Let the bug be reported and move on.

If you understood software development you would know that development starts, then an alpha build is generated, this progresses to a beta build. In both these stages the developers know bugs will exist. But to a lesser extend in beta than alpha. Then when the developer hopes has has solved all the bugs a RC is released to receive feedback and to catch any bugs that remain. The bugs in a RC are normally hard to find and only located when the software is put out to a very number of users.

I'm sorry but not being able to start a plane in a plane simulator is NOT an bug that should be in a RC or even a beta patch. That is something that should not make it out of alpha stage.

I could care less what they call it, the point is its "STILL A BETA" that "required further testing" If they were confident there were no bugs they would have sent it directly to Steam. Now they will gauge their testing and ours, fix what can be fixed, and depending on the amount of code changes, either send out another test RC beta, or send it directly to Steam.

[MadTommy]

I could care less what they call it, the point is its "STILL A BETA" that "required further testing" If they were confident there were no bugs they would have sent it directly to Steam. Now they will gauge their testing and ours, fix what can be fixed, and depending on the amount of code changes, either send out another test RC beta, or send it directly to Steam.

Actually it is the other way around. It only matters what they call it.

But this is tiresome.. clearly you have your own agenda that is not governed by the facts.

[Chivas]

Chivas, they won't send "an RC to Steam" at all. That will be the actual release, not a release candidate. Alpha > Beta > Release Candidate > Release. Pretty straightforward.

A plane that doesn't start in a flight sim is about as obvious an error as it is conceivable to think of whether it be beta, RC or a final release. Starting the planes is kind of the point of a flight sim, isn't it?

But this is just pointless semantics. It will (hopefully) be fixed so what does it matter? I doubt anyone is shocked by the ineptitude of the dev team so the discussion will have little impact.

Again like you say it doesn't matter what its called. The developer sent out the patch for further testing by the community. I've never said that the engine management faults aren't a huge problem, but my point was, why are people so surprised to find bugs, when the development is continually fixing/changing/adding code.

[MadTommy]

LOl sorry, you think we are surprised to find bugs? Classic :grin:

[Chivas]

Actually it is the other way around. It only matters what they call it.

But this is tiresome.. clearly you have your own agenda that is not governed by the facts.

Its definitely a waste of my time, when you can't differentiate fact from fiction.

[CaptainDoggles]

Unbelievable.....If it were the Release Candidate it would be sent to Steam for download. This is still a beta patch of a possible RC path, sent out to the community for testing.

Hi Chivas, I respectfully suggest you look up the definition of "Release Candidate," because you apparently have your terminology mixed up.

[yobnaf]

+1. It's just that.

Now the fanboys can PLEASE tell me if i can start RAF fighters engines?

You have to follow the instructions step by step. Hurricane and Spitfire were well known for having problems with starting the engine. So it's realistic now in this great sim, player have to learn how to use the planes correctly.

[Osprey]

Anything could have happened after/if the guy tested the start procedure, the lead programmer may have optimized code in one feature, and that change could have porked another feature. Thats the whole point of releasing another beta patch for the community to test. If they could test everything, they wouldn't bother sending the beta to the community, they'd just send it to Steam when they finished, but we'd be waiting alot longer for the Steam RC.

Chivas. Please stop talking about what you consider to be normal in the software development life cycle. I've been in software testing and QA for 14 years and I can tell you that even from the outside they simply aren't testing this software. They aren't even smoke testing it before firing it out to us. Them telling us it's in beta testing is just lip service and you are just swallowing it, they are buying time but for me that time is just about up.

[JG53Frankyboy]

You have to follow the instructions step by step. Hurricane and Spitfire were well known for having problems with starting the engine. So it's realistic now in this great sim, player have to learn how to use the planes correctly.

its almost 18 month ago i looked in the Readme of the game, what page was it again ?

[furbs]

Don't worry, Luthier will be back on later to answer our questions.

This should be one of them...

How did this slip through the vigorous testing procedure?

[adonys]

first of all, re-introducing bugs you've already solved in previous versions shows very, very bad code knowledge, programming or versioning control. most probably all of them.

secondly, they does not look like they weren't testing anything, they were simply not tested anything. they've just thrown together the last version they had on their subversion, and that was it.

as a third point, don't you imagine CoD is a different branch in the code than BoM. Considering they will work together, it is the same base code, which means what we see right now in CoD is exactly the state in which BoM is too. Which is nothing short of disastrous. Their "pace" of fixing things, more than one year and a half after release is almost zero. For God's sake, other companies are making a whole new product, from the scratch, within this period of time. they were not able to just fix some simple things.

I can not see how this might work for BoM, no matter how hard, or from which angle I'm trying to look at it.

At this point, a realistic expectation would be to expect them fixing anything they can at this crawling rate (with many previously working things getting broken) until they'll have to close the business for good, most probably at the time the BoM sale results will come in. And the optimistic one would be to have them release the code, so that we can work on it by ourselves.

As MJ said, this is it!

:)

[LoBiSoMeM]

You have to follow the instructions step by step. Hurricane and Spitfire were well known for having problems with starting the engine. So it's realistic now in this great sim, player have to learn how to use the planes correctly.

Sarcasm?

;)

Will try this:

http://youtu.be/h89GRPFUhaM

[ATAG_Dutch]

Will try this:

http://youtu.be/h89GRPFUhaM

Excellent vid Lobi! Not seen that one before. Thanks for posting! :D

[ATAG_Snapper]

Excellent vid Lobi! Not seen that one before. Thanks for posting! :D

+1 Great video.

The start up sequence for the Spitfire 1a_100 octane and the 2a are much abbreviated from the video:

1) Throttle open 20%
2). Mixture lever fully back to Auto Rich
3). Prop pitch lever fully forward to Fine
4). Open radiator to 50%
5) Magneto switches on (these will flip on automatically anyway)
6) Fuelcock lever up to Open
7). Press the "I" key on the keyboard to start the engine
8 ) Allow the oil temp to reach 40 C, glycol to 60 C
9) Use this warmup time to adjust gunsight, magnetic & gyrocompasses
10). Hunch down in seat and look unimportant to passing vulchers
11) Tap brakes to release parking brake
12) Apply full throttle slowly, but firmly
13) Use rudder to maintain straight takeoff run
14) Allow tail to come up as you roll using neutral (centered) pressure on stick
15) At 80 mph, rotate and lift off
16) Raise undercarriage
17) Pull prop pitch lever back (coarsen) to reduce rpms to desired level (2600 - 2850 rpms)
18 )Adjust trim to maintain desired airspeed (168 mph IAS)
19) Pull back radiator lever to 50%
20) Adjust trim (never ending job - Spits very unstable in CoD)
21) Monitor temps constantly (oil < 95, glycol < 120)

That's it!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Yeah, a Ki-gas primer and a wobble pump would come in very handy just now methinks.

[Chivas]

Hi Chivas, I respectfully suggest you look up the definition of "Release Candidate," because you apparently have your terminology mixed up.

I apologies for any confusion I caused with my poorly chosen words "Beta/RC", but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was the "Patch" was sent out to the community, not Steam, for further testing, and I was surprised when people got so uptight about finding bugs. They will fix the start procedure, and whatever bugs they can, and release another "Patch" for testing, or send it directly to Steam. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the sim isn't finished yet, and will continue to evolve thru the life of the series.

[Trumper]

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the sim isn't finished yet, and will continue to evolve thru the life of the series.
I know BUT if we don't want to buy BOM we should at least have the sim we bought working.I
This should NOT be a option where you have to buy product B to get product A working ,that is called blackmail.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I know BUT if we don't want to buy BOM we should at least have the sim we bought working.I
This should NOT be a option where you have to buy product B to get product A working ,that is called blackmail.
Sadly due to a lot of misinformation put out by some people there is this since of being ripped off, lied too, broken promises, or as you put it being blackmailed.

There is only one way to get past this false feeling to see the truth..

Sadly not too many people are up to the challenge..

THE CHALLENGE:

Step one of the challenge is to list all the so called broken promises..

Note for some this will be hard to do, because most of the poster only say 'broken promises' never actually listing any specific promise. For some they do this on purpose to keep the lie alive and whip up others into thinking there is a long list of broken promises, for most of the rest, they do this only because they got caught up in the lie that there is a long list of broken promises.

Step two is to provide a reference and/or link to the source of each so called promise, this step is key in that most of the so called broken promises where NOT promises at all! They were simply features that Oleg and others at 1C have talked about over the past 10+ years of some of the things they would like to do, or are trying to do at that point in the development of CoD. Another reason to find and post the link to the source of the promise is that over time what was actually said is very different from what is now being said and thus taking on a life of its own to mean something very different, seeing the original promise should clear this issue up. Than there is the whole opinion aspect of a feature in the game, take AI for one example, some consider the feature in CoD to be top notch and others consider the feature to be broken! Linking to the original promise of said feature will help those see how human expectations can not only far exceed what actually possible to do, but what was originally promised.

Only after completing these two steps will you begin to realize just how short the list is..

At which point should be able to get past this feeling of being ripped off, lied too, and or blackmailed into buying the sequel to get what you think you were promised in CoD.

In the mean time..

Take note of how many people will take issue with what I just said, and resort to attacking me personally over taking up the challenge..

Why?

Well because some here are very vested in the idea that there is a long list of broken promises, and anyone that tries to take this away from them will be attacked (kill the messenger).. The good news is all those that do only expose themselves and their true agendas

[MadTommy]

I must have missed where Trumper mentioned broken promises.

His concern was that CloD would only ever get fixed in the sequel.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well Aces as you have been around here since the original IL-2 and then when 2004 Oleg announced the Storm Of War aka Cliffs Of Dover, he did say MANY times that CoD will be the starting theatre on which new expansions will be merged on like in the successfull IL-2 series. But that seems to have been thrown out from the window as can be read from answers to community. Sequel is a standalone more or less, CoD a bargain bin product after last official patch. No big deal, but kiss goodbye to merged installs?

[CaptainDoggles]

I apologies for any confusion I caused with my poorly chosen words "Beta/RC", but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was the "Patch" was sent out to the community, not Steam, for further testing, and I was surprised when people got so uptight about finding bugs. They will fix the start procedure, and whatever bugs they can, and release another "Patch" for testing, or send it directly to Steam. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the sim isn't finished yet, and will continue to evolve thru the life of the series.

A release candidate is code that is considered to be in "final state" and is a candidate for release, hence the name.

A release candidate says "Here is what we want to release, is this okay?" and if nobody has a problem with it, they release it.

By that logic it's likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record of actually listening to the community.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

S!

Well Aces as you have been around here since the original IL-2 and then when 2004 Oleg announced the Storm Of War aka Cliffs Of Dover, he did say MANY times that CoD will be the starting theatre on which new expansions will be merged on like in the successfull IL-2 series. But that seems to have been thrown out from the window as can be read from answers to community. Sequel is a standalone more or less, CoD a bargain bin product after last official patch. No big deal, but kiss goodbye to merged installs?
The idea of merged is a little misleading..

Some think it means the sequel has to be installed over (merged) CoD to be able to use the maps and fly the planes from CoD..

But that may not be the case at all..

As we have seen with IL-2 over the past 10 years there as been several sequels, and most of them were 'stand alone' products

Where each one of those 'stand alone' contained all the maps and planes from the previous versions of IL-2, thus each 'stand alone' was in essence a 'merging'

So the way I see it there is only 3 possibilities here

1) The sequel installs over CoD and we can use all of the maps and planes of CoD.
2) The sequel is stand alone but contains all the maps and planes of CoD.
3) The sequel is stand alone but does NOT contain all the maps and planes of CoD.

I am fine with option 1 and 2, only option 3 would suck IMHO!!

[fruitbat]

option 3 would be a disaster, option 1 or 2 will lead to good future for 1c....

[Flanker35M]

S!

Agreed. Option 3 would be suckamondolicious in extraordinary proportions.

[bw_wolverine]

If a developer releases a first person shooter, but never explicitly states that the guns will actually fire, does that mean they haven't broken any promises when none of the guns work?

Also, the movie that plays on Steam's store when looking at purchasing the game still has all the fancy graphical stuff that has been taken out of the game and, going by the readme of this final release candidate patch (and note that by calling it a release candidate there is NO POSSIBILITY that anything not mentioned in the readme will be added at this point - only things in the readme will be fixed if they're broken...HOPEFULLY) that's a pretty dishonest advertising movie since there will be no chance for anyone who gets the game to make it look like that.

There's a whole lot of mess here. I have no problem with anyone being vocal in 2949842 threads about a major game breaking problem if it means that we get it fixed before MG and 1C cut the cord on this game and don't look back.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Note the lack of listing any specific effect in the video that were removed.. and the implied dishonesty but no actual proof of it..

These are the sort of vague accusation I was referring to in my post..

That in essence provide no real information and are intended to prey upon peoples imaginations!

Alfred Hitchcock used this tactic in his movies..

As in don't be specific, don't show the knife entering the body..

Be vague, and just show the shadow of the knife on the wall..

Thus allowing the persons imagination to fill in the blanks (vagueness)..

Alfred knew each person would imagine the worst case stabbing and in turn scare the heck of of themselves!

Don't let the nay-sayers spook ya with this Hollywood tactic!

Demand the nay-sayers be specific!

They won't!

But demand it anyway in that it will just highlight how weak their arguments are and thus how short the list is!

[kendo65]

S!
Well Aces as you have been around here since the original IL-2 and then when 2004 Oleg announced the Storm Of War aka Cliffs Of Dover, he did say MANY times that CoD will be the starting theatre on which new expansions will be merged on like in the successfull IL-2 series. But that seems to have been thrown out from the window as can be read from answers to community. Sequel is a standalone more or less, CoD a bargain bin product after last official patch. No big deal, but kiss goodbye to merged installs?

I think that there is a misreading here of what Luthier means. I think you're looking at this question:


Quote:
Can the sequel be merged with COD like the original il2 series and if it can will we get to test features that will be appearing in the sequel I.e. Weather etc.
This question Ilya! Please confirm that the sequel will be able to be merged with our current game as in all previous IL2 releases.

Definitely not planning to release any sequel features as add-ons for Cliffs of Dover, sorry.


I think the main part of Luthier's response was about the possibility of sequel features being introduced into COD in further patches prior to the sequel release - which won't be happening.

This is not the same though as features from the sequel (eg weather) being usable in COD as part of a merged install. The whole thing is a bit needlessly confusing, but I understand it this way.

Surely this is confirmed by the following (from later on in the thread):


Quote:
I know you stated the next CloD patch will be the last, so that means any fixes, advances and such into the game engine that come from the sequel will not be translated at some time or another back into CloD? Will Clod be completely abandoned in whatever state the final patch leaves it with no hope small updates, etc?

Why would you think that? We’ve never done that before, and I’ve always stated that our plans remain the same. There were many issues in the original IL-2 in 2001. After a few updates to the original, Forgotten Battles was released and there were no more updates to the original Il-2. That doesn’t mean it was abandoned however! You can still play all of the original Il-2 content with 1946, all carried over and updated with the rest of the engine.

[Codex]

While I'm still the "wait and see" camp before I'll buy BoM, I seriously think people need to calm the f#$k down. As Chivas and other are trying to highlight, its not the final patch Illya was talking about.

While I agree the devs seemed to have gone backwards with this RC in terms of bringing back some old bugs (this is nothing new mind you ... remember the Pacific Fighters patches?), it is still an RC and when you look it from a development point of view, it's still a beta at the end of the day. If this RC patch is bogus, report it in the proper channels.

[Hood]

Note the lack of listing any specific effect in the video that was removed.. and the implied dishonesty but no actual proof of it.. These are the sort of vague accusation I was referring to in my post that in essence provide no real information and are intended to use people imaginations to fill in the blanks..

Alfred Hitchcock used this tactic in his movies.. Don't spell out the details (show the knife entering the body) it is much scarier to just 'hint' at the knife entering the body and allowing the persons imagination to fill in the rest!

Don't let them spook ya!

Demand the nay-sayers be specific!

They won't!

But demand it anyway in that it will just highlight how weak their arguments are and thus how short the list is!

I think there's a few easy examples to give (I can't be bothered to trawl through the posts):

Recommended specs

I'll be back later to answer the questions

Developers diary

etc

Now of course in none of these declarations etc was the word "promise" mentioned, so you could probably say that no promises were broken at all. there is the legal definition of a promise though and as I couldn't be bothered to look through my reference books I found this:

A written or oral declaration given in exchange for something of value that binds the maker to do, or forbear from, a certain specific act and gives to the person to whom the declaration is made the right to expect and enforce performance or forbearance. An undertaking that something will or will not occur. It is a manifestation of intent to act, or refrain from acting, in a certain manner.

To me, taking money for a "working" game seems to be the biggest broken promise.

And as always, I kick myself because when you see the game in motion it can look stunningly beautiful and it has this amazing potential just out of reach. Sadly I cannot bring myself to believe there was any internal testing of this patch though.

Oh well.

Hood

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Now of course in none of these declarations etc was the word "promise" mentioned, so you could probably say that no promises were broken at all.
Bingo!

Which is NOT to say there are none!

My only point in asking people to list them

Is that in doing so

They will realize just how short the list is!

Which in turn will keep thier imaginations from running wild! ;)

[Hood]

Bingo!



But of course, in common everyday language a promise doesn't need to have the word "promise" in the statement at all. Look at the synonyms for the word promise to see what I mean. My personal view is that if someone says they'll do something then that has the status of a promise even if it doesn't include that word in the declaration of intent.

And what is your fascination with a numbers game?

http://www.greatlakesfolkfest.net/glff2007/programs&activities/traditionalgames/_images/Bingoplayers.jpg

Hood

[Stirwenn]

Some should be lawyer or they already are... hard to believe they can ignore/can't see what game is playing on their screen...
Chapeau bas Monsieur AoA...

[Sokol1]

The idea of merged is a little misleading..
1) The sequel installs over CoD and we can use all of the maps and planes of CoD.


No thanks, this means that the sequel will have all CLoD BUGS!!!


2) The sequel is stand alone but contains all the maps and planes of CoD.


This is OK, like IL-2 Forgothen Battles that have IL-2 (original) planes and maps, but
DONT install over this. A "new" game.

Sokol1

[ACE-OF-ACES]

But of course, in common everyday language a promise doesn't need to have the word "promise" in the statement at all.
Agreed..

Sorry if you got the impression that I was saying the word 'promise' had to exist on the side of the box for each listed feature, on the 1C website, or in anything any 1C rep said..

My point is a simple one.. The list of so called broken promises is short.. But due to some people here using Alfred Hitchcock tactics the list 'feels' long.. It is not until each so called broken promises is listed will 'REALITY' take the place of 'IMAGINATION' at which point people will not feel as if they were lied to, taken advantage of, ripped off, etc..

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Some should be lawyer or they already are... hard to believe they can ignore/can't see what game is playing on their screen...
Chapeau bas Monsieur AoA...
Note the lack of listing any specific problem..

NOT ONE!

Just the typical vague assertion that there are many problems 'playing on their screen'

These are the sort of vague accusation I am talking about..

The kind that contain no real information and are intended to prey upon peoples imaginations!

Alfred Hitchcock used this tactic in his movies..

As in don't be specific, don't show the knife entering the body..

Be vague, and just show the shadow of the knife on the wall..

Thus allowing the persons imagination to fill in the blanks (vagueness)..

Alfred knew each person would imagine the worst case stabbing and in turn scare the heck of of themselves!

Don't let the nay-sayers spook ya with this Hollywood tactic!

Demand the nay-sayers be specific!

They won't!

But demand it anyway in that it will just highlight how weak their arguments are and thus how short the list is!

[Stirwenn]

lol ! sorry no time to waste with you... but francky you are amazing ! keep on !
I may say : i love Cliffs (2000 hours playing till day one) but how far i love it, i may not sell my soul to evil in being dishonnest.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

lol ! sorry no time to waste with you... but francky you are amazing ! keep on !
As expected.. When pressed they run like roaches when the light is turned on!

Before you go Stirwenn..

I have a new avatar for you! S!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uORANt76sgQ/TrQwGdUG9MI/AAAAAAAAAvM/GNN5s9kzWf0/s1600/Hitchcock.jpg

[ATAG_Dutch]

Ace, you know I respect you, but you are a significant pain in the arse.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ace, you know I respect you, but you are a significant pain in the arse.
The truth is always a pain in the arse!

I am just the messenger! ;)

[ATAG_Dutch]

The truth is allways a pain in the arse! ;)

And you are the truth? Spare me please.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

And you are the truth? Spare me please.
Did I say I was the truth?

Nope, so spare me please!

[ATAG_Dutch]

Did I say I was the truth?

Nope, so spare me please!

Oh Sod off.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Oh Sod off.
Ah you poor thing.. Don't go away mad.. Just go away!

[ATAG_Dutch]

OK.

[bw_wolverine]

Note the lack of listing any specific effect in the video that were removed.. and the implied dishonesty but no actual proof of it..

These are the sort of vague accusation I was referring to in my post..


I seriously think you're actually a professional troll at this point, but I'll indulge you.

1. Cloud effects that are not possible to generate in game without using the now deactivated and instantly crashing weather system.

2. Cloud reflections on the water which were removed.

3. Fire and smoke effects which were removed.

4. Airframe reflection effects which were removed.

5. Sound effects for engines and guns which are non-existant in the game since day one.

6. The suggestion that you can take part in 128 player battles when in reality 60+ creates warping that makes the game nearly unplayable and certainly not enjoyable.

And this is just from the promo film on Steam. There's more from the description of the game:

Over 25 Aircrafts – English, German & Italian aircraft including the Spitfire, The Hurricane, and the Messerschmitt Bf-109. Every detail faithfully recreated.
Every detail faithfully recreated? Not by any religion I know. Also cleverly disingenuous in stating 25 aircraft implying you can fly them by then listing the obviously flyable ones.

Massive Multiplayer – Customizable modes allow for up to 128 players in huge ongoing battles or hop in deathmatch-style free-for-alls.
Here's that 128 thing again.

And just for the sake of something to think about. Every feature that was in the game in its initial release form is a sort of promise. That's the stuff they're saying is in their game. We didn't buy the game as a beta. We bought it as a finished product. Everything they've taken out since then and haven't managed to bring back in is a bit of a broken promise. You want us to start listing those one by one too Ace?

I'd like to add here that I like the game! I really do! I keep playing it, don't I? I think it's worth playing. But if you've got weeks and weeks and weeks between releasing patches, spend 20 bloody minutes to make sure all the aircraft start before you upload the damn thing. Hell, it's not like this isn't something they've had happen already! It's the FIRST thing you should check! How long did it take us to find it? And we don't even work the code.

[JTDawg]

Ouch AoA you have been zorroed , marked as you will lmao

[JG52Krupi]

Ouch AoA you have been zorroed , marked as you will lmao

:lol:

[MadTommy]

I seriously think you're actually a professional troll at this point, but I'll indulge you.................

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the troll. I tip my hat. You are a braver man than me, he'll wear you down with his one liners and his truth.

*shudder*

[kristorf]

Ouch AoA you have been zorroed , marked as you will lmao

:grin:

[senseispcc]

.
May I ask a stupid question (or it seem so);
What is the difference for a pilot in a single seater fighter to be in a battle with 50 planes and 128 planes?
I shall partly answer this but try to find more answers;
in a battle with 50 planes you have one on 50 chances to be a causality in a 128 aircrafts battle you have statistically less chances to be shoot down. It is why the "big wings" did less damage.

:evil::cool:

[furbs]

.
May I ask a stupid question (or it seem so);
What is the difference for a pilot in a single seater fighter to be in a battle with 50 planes and 128 planes?
I shall partly answer this but try to find more answers;
in a battle with 50 planes you have one on 50 chances to be a causality in a 128 aircrafts battle you have statistically less chances to be shoot down. It is why the "big wings" did less damage.

:evil::cool:

The difference is this senseispcc, on the huge BOB map if you fly realistically, 40 players means you will spend most of your time not seeing anything, unless you fly low quick sorties across the channel to meet the enemy flying the same way.

Which is what happens most of the time online.

[JG52Krupi]

Tbf Furbs that was a problem with the original il2 as well. A dogfight would start up high slowly descend with more fighters joining in. So it's more to do with pilots than the game as I have experienced this problem with every flight sim I have played.

[furbs]

Tbf Furbs that was a problem with the original il2 as well. A dogfight would start up high slowly descend with more fighters joining in. So it's more to do with pilots than the game as I have experienced this problem with every flight sim I have played.

True krupi, which is where CO-OPs come in...or dont with CLOD.

[JG52Krupi]

True krupi, which is where CO-OPs come in...or dont with CLOD.

Agreed, coops are good fun.

I don't understand why some people can't see the benefits of a coop system.

The whole planning of the mission, following the route to the target. It's just not the same as on a server no matter how many targets you have or how well planned your sortie is, your guaranteed to run into a crazy lone wolf online while a coop is much more realistic and perfect for squad training.... It's a must for the next game.

[kristorf]

Agreed, coops are good fun.

I don't understand why some people can't see the benefits of a coop system.

The whole planning of the mission, following the route to the target. It's just not the same as on a server no matter how many targets you have or how well planned your sortie is, your guaranteed to run into a crazy lone wolf online while a coop is much more realistic and perfect for squad training.... It's a must for the next game.

It should be a must for the current game, especially on the map the whole game is supposed to be based on, the Channel

[bw_wolverine]

.
May I ask a stupid question (or it seem so);
What is the difference for a pilot in a single seater fighter to be in a battle with 50 planes and 128 planes?
I shall partly answer this but try to find more answers;
in a battle with 50 planes you have one on 50 chances to be a causality in a 128 aircrafts battle you have statistically less chances to be shoot down. It is why the "big wings" did less damage.

:evil::cool:

The answer to your question is that the game is sold as a Battle of Britain simulator. Take a look at Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory and the historical battles in that and you'll see the sort of engagements people were hoping to find in this game.

Now I think of it, that might explain why they changed the name from Storm of War:Battle of Britain to Cliffs of Dover. Cliffs of Dover implies the Battle of Britain without actually promising it.

[BGs_Ricky]

Agreed, coops are good fun.

I don't understand why some people can't see the benefits of a coop system.

The whole planning of the mission, following the route to the target. It's just not the same as on a server no matter how many targets you have or how well planned your sortie is, your guaranteed to run into a crazy lone wolf online while a coop is much more realistic and perfect for squad training.... It's a must for the next game.

I've played co-ops in CLOD, but of course i works when you play with people you know or in a squad/intersquad framework. Of course the actual format makes it difficult to launch a "public co-op".
The the only difference is that you don't select your plane in a list of available planes like in Il-2.
You can plan your mission the same, then everyones selects the plane he choose on an airbase, spawns, groups with the others to take off to his assigned mission...same happens on the other side. I really don't see what is stopping people to do it in a squad environment :confused:

[JG52Krupi]

I have arranged a bombing run with guys on ATAG, that is nothing like a true il2 Coop... Buy 1946 and you will see what we are talking about!!!

[BGs_Ricky]

I have arranged a bombing run with guys on ATAG, that is nothing like a true il2 Coop... Buy 1946 and you will see what we are talking about!!!

I've been playing co-ops in Il-2 for years in a squad, so I know how they were.
I'm not talking about doing pseudo co-ops on a public server like ATAG, but doing co-op missions on a a password room you created for your mission via the in-game multiplayer interface with people you know/from your squad. That you can do with the game. You just need a bit more discipline that's it.

Now I agree that setting up co-op and waiting for random people to fill-in like it was done via Hyperlobby won't work, as you need to be sure that everyone will wait to spawn at the same time. Works in a squad or with trusted people, won't work if the mission is open to anyone, that I agree upon.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I seriously think you're actually a professional troll at this point,
As if what you think about me has anything to do with the topic at hand..

But I understand how some can take it personal when long held beliefs are challenged!

And for future reference, the good news is, as an adult, I don't really care what anyone in a game forum thinks about me!

So you and yours can save some time in future posts by keeping your personal feelings to yourself!

but I'll indulge you.
This is not a good sign IMHO..

It indicates that you did not read and or understand the challenge..

In that the whole purpose of the challenge it to indulge yourself!

I have already taking the challenge, which is why I don't feel as if I have been lied to, ripped off, etc..

1. Cloud effects that are not possible to generate in game without using the now deactivated and instantly crashing weather system.

2. Cloud reflections on the water which were removed.

3. Fire and smoke effects which were removed.

4. Airframe reflection effects which were removed.

5. Sound effects for engines and guns which are non-existant in the game since day one.

6. The suggestion that you can take part in 128 player battles when in reality 60+ creates warping that makes the game nearly unplayable and certainly not enjoyable.

And this is just from the promo film on Steam.
Based on this it is clear that you did not read the challenge.. Note that above you were barely able to complete Step 1, and totally missed Step 2..

That is to say, just repeating 'broken promises' that you have come to 'imagine' exist is not going to help you realize they do not exist..

You have to do both steps in the challenge!

There's more from the description of the game:
Ok, lets see what you got here..

Over 25 Aircrafts – English, German & Italian aircraft including the Spitfire, The Hurricane, and the Messerschmitt Bf-109. Every detail faithfully recreated.
Every detail faithfully recreated? Not by any religion I know. Also cleverly disingenuous in stating 25 aircraft implying you can fly them by then listing the obviously flyable ones.
Now this is a little better!

And is something I can work with to help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality.

Lets take a look at each issue

1st) Every detail faithfully recreated.. First thing to note, you did not list ONE THING that you considered to NOT BE faithfully recreated, which makes it impossible for me to address your issues here.. Other than to point out you have resorted back to the Alfred Hitchcock scare tactics.

2nd) 25 Aircraft.. First thing to note, no where does it say there are 25 flyable aircraft! Just because you read that and got the impression that there were 25 flyable aircraft does not equate to a 'broken promise'. It is too bad that you never had the chance to fly IL-2 before buying CoD, or just about any other flight sim, in that you would have been well aware of the fact that most flight sims have un-flyable aircraft.

Massive Multiplayer – Customizable modes allow for up to 128 players in huge ongoing battles or hop in deathmatch-style free-for-alls.
Here's that 128 thing again.
Sorry but your being a little vague here? So allow me to help you clarify your statement with a few questions

Q1) Are you saying CoD does not allow serves sizes of 128 people to join?

If so, I am 99% sure you are wrong! In that I have seen servers listing 128 player capabilities..

Or is this a continuation of your online experiences where 60+ players caused warping?

Assuming that is the case allow me address this for you.. In short it is not the games fault if the server hardware is not up to the task of 128 players, or that the server has the settings so low that they allow people with piss poor pings to join the server. Thus no promise broken here either!

And just for the sake of something to think about. Every feature that was in the game in its initial release form is a sort of promise. That's the stuff they're saying is in their game.
What stuff?

In light of the fact that you did NOT LIST ONE feature (stuff) it makes it hard for me to try and help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality. And is just another example of the Alfred Hitchcock scare tactics

We didn't buy the game as a beta. We bought it as a finished product.
Agreed, but you have to understand that you would be hard pressed to find any modern game that is release bug free

Everything they've taken out since then and haven't managed to bring back in is a bit of a broken promise.
Everything?

In light of the fact that you did NOT LIST ONE feature (stuff) it makes it hard for me to try and help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality. And is just another example of the Alfred Hitchcock scare tactics

You want us to start listing those one by one too Ace?
If you want me to help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality!

On that note I will say this, changing and or removing a feature does not necessarily equate to a broken promise! No more than adding a feature is a broken promise!

But until you can be more specific (less vague) I can not address this issue of your adequately

I'd like to add here that I like the game! I really do!
As so the many who are playing it day in and day out, both offline and on

I keep playing it, don't I?
Are you asking me?

If so, sorry, I left my crystal ball at home today thus there is no way for me to see what you are doing at this moment or in the near future! ;)

I think it's worth playing. But if you've got weeks and weeks and weeks between releasing patches, spend 20 bloody minutes to make sure all the aircraft start before you upload the damn thing. Hell, it's not like this isn't something they've had happen already! It's the FIRST thing you should check! How long did it take us to find it? And we don't even work the code.
There are several ways to look at that.. One being negative, where you only focus on the negative, Two, the fact that they missed that tells me their focus is on 'other things'...

Now allow me to use the Alfred Hitchcock tactic here in reverse..

Where 'other things' can mean what ever it is to the reader..

If you think the FM sucks, than you can convince yourself that they were so busy with the FM that they forgot to check if the engine starts..
If you think the AI sucks, than you can convince yourself that they were so busy with the AI that they forgot to check if the engine starts..

Sadly most never stop to consider the positive side of Alfred Hitchcock tactic! ;)

[icarus]

Agreed, coops are good fun.

I don't understand why some people can't see the benefits of a coop system.

The whole planning of the mission, following the route to the target. It's just not the same as on a server no matter how many targets you have or how well planned your sortie is, your guaranteed to run into a crazy lone wolf online while a coop is much more realistic and perfect for squad training.... It's a must for the next game.
+1

[Osprey]

I have arranged a bombing run with guys on ATAG, that is nothing like a true il2 Coop... Buy 1946 and you will see what we are talking about!!!

Wrong server Krupi. The only historical accuracy on ATAG is the map it's on, and even then they do not use actual place names or historically accurate squadron locations. There are other servers running historically accurate maps and are even suitable for lonewolf action because of the AI, (71st/ACG Combined, Storm of War Campaigns - you can fly with large groups (30+) of bombers with escorts on historical missions to correct locations and routes in those. Strangely though everyone just autopilots into ATAG even when it's rammed full to the point of warps and lag. It is good that there is a place to go when things are quieter but the game gets a dis-service because everyone is in there and nowhere else so everyone has a bad time. I don't want it to sound like I'm slagging ATAG, that's not what I'm saying, but they should cap their limit because the game just can't handle those numbers anyway right now.

Last night 6 squadrons of allied and axis just got together and just went elsewhere, we had a great time over Eastchurch at 14kft attacking 30+ escorted Dorniers on SOWC. Anyone else seeking this mission based action in groups flying together just PM me. Allied or Axis, we cater for all.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Simple question:

How can i start the Hurricanes? ;)

[ElAurens]

Wait for the gold release on Steam, that's what I am doing.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Wait for the gold release on Steam, that's what I am doing.

Will do the same! :)

[bw_wolverine]

As if... .

You're amazing, buddy. Keep doing what you do.

[Chivas]

A release candidate is code that is considered to be in "final state" and is a candidate for release, hence the name.

A release candidate says "Here is what we want to release, is this okay?" and if nobody has a problem with it, they release it.

By that logic it's likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record of actually listening to the community.

I know what a Release Candidate is, I just chose the wrong words for testing the release candidate, I chose the phrase beta testing, which is a common phrase for testing software. When I should have just used Patch testing so people couldn't deflect the point I was trying to make.

Your logic "its likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record" doesn't ring totally true. The development would have released the RC directly to Steam if it didn't consider they might have to make a few more fixes. I agree that the standalone COD future is nearing an end for economic reasons, but it could still have a very strong future, with years of improvements with the release of the Sequels, not to mention third party, and community mods.

Its interesting the conclusions the community makes.

MG track record for instance.

MG supports and builds a series to very good reviews for years, but struggles building the new game engine and somehow their track record is bad.

MG Patch testing.

MG releases patches to the community to help speed up the beta testing process. The community finds bugs and immediately assumes the MG aren't testing the patches or reading the community test results.

Engine start failed again.

MG makes improvements to the engine management feature, but introduce another bug that makes the Hurricane difficult to start again. Some in the community immediately assume its the same bug as last time, and roll their eyes in contempt.

Logic isn't one of our strong points.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You're amazing, buddy. Keep doing what you do.
Wilco!

So in summary..

Thus far..

NO ONE has been able to come up with one valid 'broken promise' (where valid = doing step 1 and step 2 of the challange)

Strange when you stop and consider how many references are made to 'broken promises' on a daliy bases in this forum..

You would think someone could provide one!

I mean if it was true.. And there were dozens upon dozens of 'broken promises' than it should be a simple mater to list at least one if not a half dozen

But I digress!

All in all thanks for proving my point! S!

[icarus]

Wait for the gold release on Steam, that's what I am doing.

+1

[[URU]BlackFox]

In the meantime, we just "observe and report" ;)

[Force10]

All in all thanks for proving my point! S!


"Tell him what he's won Bob!"

The same faulty broken game as before he started his "promise" wasn't used campaign. I don't see why Ace gets so hung up on the word "promise". They showed videos of things used to entice people of features that "possibly" might be in the game.


The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns

.....We released a faulty game.



The dev has admitted to everyone their disappointment with the game and apologized for it. No need for you to whitewash and try to cover for Luthier anymore Ace, that cat's out of the bag.

[Catseye]

Logic isn't one of our strong points.

Chivas,
I don't think you should be too quick to denigrate the "community" in general terms of lacking logic.

Looking back over the posts on this thread, I find some well placed, erudite and very logical points or comments in general from all sides.

What I am seeing though, is the arguments being placed from two different perspectives. One perspective is that of a Beta tester. The other perspective is one of a client who has purchased a product.

Both perspectives have their valid points. However and regrettably, the process that 1C has chosen to improve on Cliffs and prepare for the next release, is to dump Beta versions into the community and expecting coordinated and factual results.

This would be similar IMHO, to having a community leader present a scenario to a town hall meeting. You surely will see a mix of logic, emotions, passions, variations, suggestions and outright insults ensue.

A solution that comes to mind eminates from managing customer expectations and implementing procedures in a more streamlined approach. To me, the solution is the process of formal inside and outside beta teams. I've had the good fortune in the past to be on the Falcon4 outside beta team and the Flanker outside beta team.

Flanker IMHO was the best because: Testers had to apply, give their credentials, be chosen and issued passwords and protected download opportunities. The Flanker Devs had beta test documents on their site to be accessed directly that had to be filled out accurately. They had version control. NDA's were signed. Text was issued detailing changes made to the previous version, problems to be specifically checked for the current one and other information. Testers could access a list of issues identified previously by testers with specifics so as not to report the same already identified issue. The inside team was an exclusive group of about 10 Beta testers with specific qualifications. (They were really in the outside world - not at the Devs location.) After they had first crack at the latest version and adjustments made, that corrected version was sent out to the outside team of about 30 or so testers for verification. After that go around several times, the patch or update was issued publicly.

The reward for being on the testing teams was: Too be a part of the development of a product that I and others passionately cared about; recognition with names of all the testers printed in the manual; a GREAT T-shirt entitled - "Flanker Testing Team" with a super imprint of the Flanker in flight. To me, that was enough.

So here we are arguing amongst ourselves with our passions about a sim we all care about while approaching the arguements from different perspectives. While you may consider yourself to be a beta tester for Cliffs, I and others at this time do not. Therefore, the perspective of what is being released to the community is very different indeed.

I would consider applying to be on the tester team if that option was made available by 1C. But as it is now, I'm just a paying customer. I think that: if we all took time to be aware of the mish-mash of opinion, our own perspectives and the source of the opinions in the community that is generated by what I consider a flawed Beta system it certainly would be better for all.

I respect the opinions that you and other's more inclined to be beta testers put out. I also urge you to understand that headings in the forum that are not within the beta testers report section should not be subject to a beta testers perspective but rather should be considered to be that of the general client base instead. To that end, they are not IMHO subject to the same criteria that you or a passionate beta tester would expect to be appropriate.

Our enthusiasm and passions in the forum world will naturally foment into what we are experiencing now. Unless you belong to a specic group ie., heart specialists, plumbers, farmers, quilters or . . . . qualified beta testers - and have the same credentials, education, training, language nuances, goals - then the discourse is disjointed, dysfunctional, non-productive and generally decays to the lowest common denominator . . . . . which is personal insults.

I think we are all better than this.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I don't see why Ace gets so hung up on the word "promise".
I am hung up on the word?

Don't confuse me repeating what you and yours say as an indicator or proof of me being hung up on a word

I am simply repeating what you and yours are saying on a daily bases..

As for luither admiting this or that..

Note I never said he didn't

My only point you and yours are missing is that there are not as many broken promises as you think there are

Hope that helps! S!

PS I noted that you didn't offer up an examples of a 'broke promise' either

[Chivas]

Wilco!

So in summary..

Thus far..

NO ONE has been able to come up with one valid 'broken promise' (where valid = doing step 1 and step 2 of the challange)

Strange when you stop and consider how many references are made to 'broken promises' on a daliy bases in this forum..

You would think someone could provide one!

I mean if it was true.. And there were dozens upon dozens of 'broken promises' than it should be a simple mater to list at least one if not a half dozen

But I digress!

All in all thanks for proving my point! S!

I agree....people would have a valid argument for using a "Promise" for features listed on the BOX cover, or official release website, but there are few of those listed. The vast majority of the posts that proclaim broken promises in the forums were never made by the developer. The developer has stated that this is a WIP and features would be added as game and system resources allowed thru the life of the series.

The developer has just now made the sim playable with minimal features working, and it will be sometime before we see all the features working as we would hope. COD for obvious reasons hasn't been financially successful enough to support further work, but the good news is the investors still seem to be willing to support the series at least until the Sequels release.

The standalone COD is almost dead, but the Channel map should live on with "promised" feature improvements and additions by the devs and community through the life of the Sequels, "IF" the next Sequel is successful enough to help support further development. There is still a chance we will eventually see a much improved IL-2 1946 on the new game engine.

[Trumper]

Sadly due to a lot of misinformation put out by some people there is this since of being ripped off, lied too, broken promises, or as you put it being blackmailed.

There is only one way to get past this false feeling to see the truth..

Sadly not too many people are up to the challenge..

THE CHALLENGE:

Step one of the challenge is to list all the so called broken promises..

Note for some this will be hard to do, because most of the poster only say 'broken promises' never actually listing any specific promise. For some they do this on purpose to keep the lie alive and whip up others into thinking there is a long list of broken promises, for most of the rest, they do this only because they got caught up in the lie that there is a long list of broken promises.

Step two is to provide a reference and/or link to the source of each so called promise, this step is key in that most of the so called broken promises where NOT promises at all! They were simply features that Oleg and others at 1C have talked about over the past 10+ years of some of the things they would like to do, or are trying to do at that point in the development of CoD. Another reason to find and post the link to the source of the promise is that over time what was actually said is very different from what is now being said and thus taking on a life of its own to mean something very different, seeing the original promise should clear this issue up. Than there is the whole opinion aspect of a feature in the game, take AI for one example, some consider the feature in CoD to be top notch and others consider the feature to be broken! Linking to the original promise of said feature will help those see how human expectations can not only far exceed what actually possible to do, but what was originally promised.

Only after completing these two steps will you begin to realize just how short the list is..

At which point should be able to get past this feeling of being ripped off, lied too, and or blackmailed into buying the sequel to get what you think you were promised in CoD.

In the mean time..

Take note of how many people will take issue with what I just said, and resort to attacking me personally over taking up the challenge..

Why?

Well because some here are very vested in the idea that there is a long list of broken promises, and anyone that tries to take this away from them will be attacked (kill the messenger).. The good news is all those that do only expose themselves and their true agendas

I assume you haven't or don't want to read the questions and answers by Luthier then,
" Have you seen how many times the same questions are asked, and if so
Why are they not being answered unambiguously, or a way that appears deceptive?
Why is there so much emphasis placed on the sequels process when most want CoD fixed?
Because we’re a business. Our goal is to make money. Fixing Cliffs of Dover does not bring in any money, and it has not pretty much from the start. Even if we spend another year working on nothing but Cliffs of Dover and release a super-mega-ultra update with co-op, blackjack, and hookers, how many copies do you honestly believe the game will sell?
Then the entire team can happily go and look for a new job, preferably in a third world country where it’ll be easier to hide from our investors".
Surely even your rose tinted glasses can see this.

[Force10]

I am hung up on the word?

Don't confuse me repeating what you and yours say as an indicator or proof of me being hung up on a word

I am simply repeating what you and yours are saying on a daily bases..

As for luither admiting this or that..

Note I never said he didn't

My only point you and yours are missing is that there are not as many broken promises as you think there are

Hope that helps! S!

PS I noted that you didn't offer up an examples of a 'broke promise' either

Oh my...Ace just loves shooting from the hip on a daily basis. Just like he put his foot in his mouth at the beginning of this thread with OP...comical!

You keep saying "you and yours". I would challenge you to find a post where I said the dev broke a "promise"...but I can save you some time. I think it would be very hard to find a dev that actually used the word "promise" in the history of video game developement. But releasing a promo vid and showing videos of things that were meant to be in the game was "misleading".

Not that I don't mind being a victim of Ace's hip shooting...it's just getting old. He kind of reminds me of a ship still firing it's guns as it is sinking under the water. The devs admitted COD will not be fixed to even their expectations and is over and done. Kinda sad that Ace just doesn't let it go. It's probably evident since he doesn't post any cool screenshots, talk about interesting missions he flew, or lead by some sort of example by actually playing the game.....posting here is all he's got.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I agree....people would have a valid argument for using a "Promise" for features listed on the BOX cover, or official release website, but there are few of those listed. The vast majority of the posts that proclaim broken promises in the forums were never made by the developer. The developer has stated that this is a WIP and features would be added as game and system resources allowed thru the life of the series.
Wheuuu..

Thank you Chivas!

For a moment there I thought I said something wrong..

But based on the fact that you get it..

Tells me those who don't get it..

Just don't and won't or choose not to get it!

S!

[MadTommy]

Ace-of-Aces can you read this thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34688) and add your name to the list. You just wind people up, maybe you get your kicks by doing this, but its is getting really tedious. You have your opinion, fair enough, but your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

Please for the love of god wind your neck in.

I won't be responding to any response from you, this is just a sincere plea to you to stop being so antagonistic and turning every thread you enter into a tiresome squabble.

Please.

[jimbop]

Ace-of-Aces can you read this thread (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34688) and add your name to the list. You just wind people up, maybe you get your kicks by doing this, but its is getting really tedious. You have your opinion, fair enough, but your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

Please for the love of god wind your neck in.

I won't be responding to any response from you, this is just a sincere plea to you to stop being so antagonistic and turning every thread you enter into a tiresome squabble.

Please.

+1

[ACE-OF-ACES]

You just wind people up, maybe you get your kicks by doing this, but its is getting really tedious.
I should point out that the only people getting upset are the ones that take is personal when their long held beliefs are challenged

You have your opinion, fair enough, but your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.
Opinion?

Actually the fact that no one was able to provide ONE example of a broken promise should show that this is not an opinion

Which is not to say there are no broken promises!

Only that this inability shows there are no where near as many broken promises as some would have us belive!

Please for the love of god wind your neck in.
Wind my neck?

Sorry, you lost me there

I won't be responding to any response from you, this is just a sincere plea to you to stop being so antagonistic and turning every thread you enter into a tiresome squabble.

Please.
No worries!

As I noted in my post to Chivas

There is no need in continuing to try and show people something they are unwilling to see (closed minds remain closed)

So, I have no more to say on this, unless you and yours feel the need to comment on it further

But I will end it with this..

I called it from the get go! i.e.


In the mean time..

Take note of how many people will take issue with what I just said, and resort to attacking me personally over taking up the challenge..

Why?

Well because some here are very vested in the idea that there is a long list of broken promises, and anyone that tries to take this away from them will be attacked (kill the messenger).. The good news is all those that do only expose themselves and their true agendas
Hate it when I am right! ;)

[Codex]

Please ... give it a rest already.

All this squabbling over minute details on who said what or what means what is getting really old.

At the end of day, is it really that important to be right or to have people bow to an opinion? Really?

Sometimes it feel like the Crusades in here.

[MadTommy]

Ok i take it back, i will respond.

Please look at my posting history and quote me once ever talking about broken promises or similar or any reference to these supposed held beliefs. I think you must be getting me confused with someone entirely different. :confused:

[planespotter]

Ok, back to thread topic...sorry to be boring...what is best solution for starting RAF machines. Has way found to spawn warm? Can fmb be used to start warm?

[JG52Krupi]

The spit MK1a 100oct and Spit Mk 2a start correctly...

[planespotter]

Poop. I love my Hurricane...it takes more hits before going down!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Ok i take it back, i will respond.

Please look at my posting history and quote me once ever talk about broken promises or similar or any reference to these supposed held beliefs. I think you must be getting me confused with someone entirely different. :confused:
No need, In that my post was not directed and you and you alone.

As for the phrase 'broken promises' is interchangeable with other forum statements..

The phrase broken promises is just the one I see used the most, but feel free to replace it with any of the following..

For example, many here say they feel 'ripped off' or 'lied to' or 'cheated' etc.. etc.. its all the same

[Catseye]

Ok, back to thread topic...sorry to be boring...what is best solution for starting RAF machines. Has way found to spawn warm? Can fmb be used to start warm?

Colander over at ATAG is looking into getting aircraft to spawn warmed up at some airfields. As I understand it, it is proving to be difficult but he is still looking at ways to accomplish this.

The RAF aircraft that do not start unfortunately are broken in the release and the only solution to date is provided by ATAG with airstarts at Eastchurch on a couple of models.

Once the startup and mixture issues are resolved, including the more obvious graphic glitches corrected, I think that we will have a playable sim to carry us on until the sequel.

[Catseye]

Poop. I love my Hurricane...it takes more hits before going down!

Me too! Especially the 100 oct.

This is one of the airstart aircraft at Eastchurch on one of the maps on the ATAG server.

[MadTommy]

For example, many here say they feel 'ripped off' or 'lied to' or 'cheated' etc.. etc.. its all the same

I agree.. such terms are clearly childish. I have never posted any such views or comments. Hell $50 on a video game is pocket change... Just don't tarnish me with that crap. Stop bloody trolling.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I agree.. such terms are clearly childish.
Agreed 100%

I have never posted any such views or comments.
If that is true, than please forgive me! In that I must have you confused with someone else!

Hell $50 on a video game is pocket change...
Agreed 100%

Just don't tarnish me with that crap.
See above!

Stop bloody trolling.
As I told you before

I was done!

Can not help those whos minds are closed!

I have proved my point

No need to prove it over and over!

Nuff said! Unless you got more to say about it?

[Chivas]

Chivas,
I don't think you should be too quick to denigrate the "community" in general terms of lacking logic.

Looking back over the posts on this thread, I find some well placed, erudite and very logical points or comments in general from all sides.

What I am seeing though, is the arguments being placed from two different perspectives. One perspective is that of a Beta tester. The other perspective is one of a client who has purchased a product.

Both perspectives have their valid points. However and regrettably, the process that 1C has chosen to improve on Cliffs and prepare for the next release, is to dump Beta versions into the community and expecting coordinated and factual results.

This would be similar IMHO, to having a community leader present a scenario to a town hall meeting. You surely will see a mix of logic, emotions, passions, variations, suggestions and outright insults ensue.

A solution that comes to mind eminates from managing customer expectations and implementing procedures in a more streamlined approach. To me, the solution is the process of formal inside and outside beta teams. I've had the good fortune in the past to be on the Falcon4 outside beta team and the Flanker outside beta team.

Flanker IMHO was the best because: Testers had to apply, give their credentials, be chosen and issued passwords and protected download opportunities. The Flanker Devs had beta test documents on their site to be accessed directly that had to be filled out accurately. They had version control. NDA's were signed. Text was issued detailing changes made to the previous version, problems to be specifically checked for the current one and other information. Testers could access a list of issues identified previously by testers with specifics so as not to report the same already identified issue. The inside team was an exclusive group of about 10 Beta testers with specific qualifications. (They were really in the outside world - not at the Devs location.) After they had first crack at the latest version and adjustments made, that corrected version was sent out to the outside team of about 30 or so testers for verification. After that go around several times, the patch or update was issued publicly.

The reward for being on the testing teams was: Too be a part of the development of a product that I and others passionately cared about; recognition with names of all the testers printed in the manual; a GREAT T-shirt entitled - "Flanker Testing Team" with a super imprint of the Flanker in flight. To me, that was enough.

So here we are arguing amongst ourselves with our passions about a sim we all care about while approaching the arguements from different perspectives. While you may consider yourself to be a beta tester for Cliffs, I and others at this time do not. Therefore, the perspective of what is being released to the community is very different indeed.

I would consider applying to be on the tester team if that option was made available by 1C. But as it is now, I'm just a paying customer. I think that: if we all took time to be aware of the mish-mash of opinion, our own perspectives and the source of the opinions in the community that is generated by what I consider a flawed Beta system it certainly would be better for all.

I respect the opinions that you and other's more inclined to be beta testers put out. I also urge you to understand that headings in the forum that are not within the beta testers report section should not be subject to a beta testers perspective but rather should be considered to be that of the general client base instead. To that end, they are not IMHO subject to the same criteria that you or a passionate beta tester would expect to be appropriate.

Our enthusiasm and passions in the forum world will naturally foment into what we are experiencing now. Unless you belong to a specic group ie., heart specialists, plumbers, farmers, quilters or . . . . qualified beta testers - and have the same credentials, education, training, language nuances, goals - then the discourse is disjointed, dysfunctional, non-productive and generally decays to the lowest common denominator . . . . . which is personal insults.

I think we are all better than this.

I don't believe the majority are logically dysfunctional, and hope there is a silent majority, waiting with more patience and understanding of the difficulties. Like I've said many times before the development deserve alot of heat for the unfinished release, and the problems are significant enough that its certainly not necessary to misinform, exaggerate, to make a point. How the recent code changes that caused a different engine start problem can be extrapulated into the devs not doing any patch testing is not very logical. Possible but not logical.

We bought an unfinished product without doing our due diligence, relying on past history. That won't happen again. That doesn't make it right, but the developer made an apology and appeared to have every intention to make it right. They've rewritten and provided patches for the sound and graphic engine, and are in the process of rewriting the GUI, AI, SDK, etc. Unfortunately they can't do that forever and survive financially, so they will be releasing a paid Sequel with hopefully many of these fixes included. I will buy the Sequel only after doing my due diligence this time, and make sure the fixes/features I want are working and they apply to the Channel Map as well as the Russian Maps.

[Catseye]

[QUOTE=Chivas;46601
We bought an unfinished product without doing our due diligence, relying on past history. That won't happen again. That doesn't make it right, but the developer made an apology and appeared to have every intention to make it right. They've rewritten and provided patches for the sound and graphic engine, and are in the process of rewriting the GUI, AI, SDK, etc. Unfortunately they can't do that forever and survive financially, so they will be releasing a paid Sequel with hopefully many of these fixes included. I will buy the Sequel only after doing my due diligence this time, and make sure the fixes/features I want are working and they apply to the Channel Map as well as the Russian Maps.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%
I will also be evaluating very carefully the features of the sequel prior to purchasing. As it stands now, I think that we will have a reasonably steady and flyable sim with the recent major issues fixed and noticeable graphic anomalies corrected. I have accepted the approach by the Devs to concentrate on new development and don't expect a large investment of their time to bring COD up to full completion at this time. I do expect though, that the sequel will have some form of compatibility wherein we will get to experience COD as it was intended to be from the outset.

In the meantime, I and my squadmates will enjoy flying on some of the great servers we have until the sequel arrives. I see great potential despite the current frustrations experienced by all parties.

Despite my venting at beta results and procedures, all-in-all, I'm enjoying the sim immensely.

[LoBiSoMeM]

How can i start my Hurricane, ACE-OF-ACES?!?!?!

;)

[Chivas]

Agree 100%
I will also be evaluating very carefully the features of the sequel prior to purchasing. As it stands now, I think that we will have a reasonably steady and flyable sim with the recent major issues fixed and noticeable graphic anomalies corrected. I have accepted the approach by the Devs to concentrate on new development and don't expect a large investment of their time to bring COD up to full completion at this time. I do expect though, that the sequel will have some form of compatibility wherein we will get to experience COD as it was intended to be from the outset.

In the meantime, I and my squadmates will enjoy flying on some of the great servers we have until the sequel arrives. I see great potential despite the current frustrations experienced by all parties.

Despite my venting at beta results and procedures, all-in-all, I'm enjoying the sim immensely.

Yes, there is plenty to vent about, but COD is just a map, with some dedicated aircraft, missions, and campaigns. Everything depends on them fixing the game engine and features for the Sequel. Any fixes will apply to all maps. When you fly the COD map in the sequel, the game engine, and features won't revert back to the version of features that we have now. Yes the mission and campaigns won't change, but the community will fill that void, building much better ones with improve game features, and game engine. Although Luthier has been sending mixed messages about the business model and Sequels. Hopefully the announcement on the future of the development will be good news.

[Bounder!]

The spit MK1a 100oct and Spit Mk 2a start correctly...

Yes and no... it depends on the time of day on the server. Starting on the ATAG mission where it's just before dawn you'll still find yourself spamming the ignition key for a while before the engine will start up (on the 1a 100 Oct at least - not tried the 2a). As time on the server progresses to later in the day, when presumably the temperature of the environment warms from the Sun's glow, it becomes possible to start the engine in one go.

However, there is still a lengthy wait upon ignition before the engine warms up sufficiently to taxi and takeoff in the Spitfire compared with the 109 atm. It's not a major problem, more a small pain when you're trying to get airborne before vultures arrive or for example in a multiplayer campaign, where being able to scramble and get to altitude in time is of paramount importance.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, it's not a major problem like we have with the Hurricanes but if it could be fixed while preserving the newly fixed Spitfire FMs that'd be great. If it's a choice between a warm engine start but nerfed FMs/engine overheating problems (like the last patch), or what we have now, I'll happily take what we've got in this patch.

[trademe900]

Make airstarts for now on ATAG, the worst thing with the Hurricane now is that it absolutely sucks at turning.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

How can i start my Hurricane, ACE-OF-ACES?!?!?!

;)
Not sure what your point is..

Is this question in regards to me pointing out how short the list of 'broken promiseses" is?

Assuming that is the case, you should know that no one (that I know of ) considers the the engine starting issue a "broken promises", it is just a bug.

Hope that helps! S!

[Force10]

Assuming that is the case, you should know that no one (that I know of ) considers the the engine starting issue a "broken promises", it is just a bug.

Hope that helps! S!


Nope not a broken promise....just incompetence by the devs!

[LoBiSoMeM]

You poor thing..

I know it can be upsetting at times, not being able to get things to work on the first try..

But here is some additional info that might help you out..

From the patch notes..


That and you might want to 'read' JG52Uther re-post of what Farber had to say wrt starting the engines..

Where you can see 'some' people got the engines to start because they had the patience to try a few things before posting here that it was a bug

Good Luck!

That's the reason i asked you how can i start the Hurricane engine... ;)

You are really amazing! :-P

Now, please, go back to your cave...

[beepee]

Great patch. Love the realistic start up procedures for the planes now. Good work, dev team.boy your a freakin hero!!!!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Nope not a broken promise....
Glad you agree with me! S!

just incompetence by the devs!
Incompetence?

You don't write software for a living or pleasure do you?

May I suggest that you goggle software bug and do a little reading on the subject?

After which you hopefully realize that most if not all software has bugs at one point or another, even reoccurring one, and thus not an indication incompetence and just the nature of the work.

This topic is about this HUGE bug.
Actually that is not true..

Granted the title is a little misleading, but read the OP and take note that he brought up several issues beyond the starting issue, i.e.

Also, key map is changed for full rich and full lean. They don't work!!

Maybe it's me but I don't think so.
As you can see the OP also brought a mixture lever issue

You jump into it and start your agenda.
Agenda?

Actually that is not true..

As you can see from my first post (jump in point) I was discussing the mixture lever issue that the OP brought up..

Where I pointed out the post by luither made note of the mixture lever being fixed, which resulted in it being reversed from previous version

I just want to start the Hurricane or a quick fix for this GIANT bug!

Just that.
We all want different things!

Me, I just wanted help the OP out by pointing out that luither made note of the mixture lever being reversed in that at that time it was clear he didn't realize that and that it may have something to do with him not being able to start the engine

You can go back to your cave now.
Cave?

Sorry you lost me there

[Force10]

That's the reason i asked you how can i start the Hurricane engine... ;)

You are really amazing! :-P

Now, please, go back to your cave...

Ace is still in backpedal mode since he was telling the OP that it wasn't a bug and he just wasn't trying hard enough. Now he's on this "broken promise" crusade to help mask the fact that he put his foot in his mouth...again.

[JG52Krupi]

It is rather amusing isn't :lol:, really quite pathetic. But guys please don't quote him I have him on ignore for a reason.

Thanks

[ACE-OF-ACES]

But guys please don't quote him
No worries about that Krupi!

Because they know if they quoted me it would show that I was initally talking about the mixture levers and not the engine starting.. It was not until my next post that I pointed out (quoted) Uthers re-post that some folks were able to start the engines online.. Which would also make it clear that at no time did I say this was not a bug.

PS I know you don't have me on ignore, due to the fact that every so often you reply to my posts, so, you only make yourself look silly trying to pretend you have me on ignore! ;)

[MadTommy]

http://www.djow.co.uk/bitsbobs/forum-troll-a_o_a.png

Sorry but i could not stop myself... :twisted:

Bye, i suspect i may take a wee break.

[Catseye]

It is rather amusing isn't :lol:, really quite pathetic. But guys please don't quote him I have him on ignore for a reason.

Thanks

You and me both.

Hope folks get the idea about quoting text from him.

Personally, I would like the moderators to consider another criteria for banning and that is: a poster continually hi-jacking a thread and sending it into a bar-room brawl. I would use this poster as the base-line for that measurement.

[JG52Krupi]

http://www.djow.co.uk/bitsbobs/forum-troll-a_o_a.png

Sorry but i could not stop myself... :twisted:

Bye, i suspect i may take a wee break.

You and me both.

Hope folks get the idea about quoting text from him.

Personally, I would like the moderators to consider another criteria for banning and that is: a poster continually hi-jacking a thread and sending it into a bar-room brawl. I would use this poster as the base-line for that measurement.

+1 to both of you :lol:

[Force10]

http://www.djow.co.uk/bitsbobs/forum-troll-a_o_a.png

Sorry but i could not stop myself... :twisted:

Bye, i suspect i may take a wee break.



LOL! Good one Tommy! :-P

[beepee]

Good post Cat, unfortunatley they cannot see the wood for the trees that they can fly through. :-P+1

[ACE-OF-ACES]

No need, In that my post was not directed and you and you alone.

As for the phrase 'broken promises' is interchangeable with other forum statements..

The phrase broken promises is just the one I see used the most, but feel free to replace it with any of the following..

For example, many here say they feel 'ripped off' or 'lied to' or 'cheated' etc.. etc.. its all the same
I agree.. such terms are clearly childish. I have never posted any such views or comments.
Tommy..

Please forgive me!

In that I forgot to give credit where credit is due!

That being you AGREE WITH ME on the subject of 'broken promises'

The only part that is confusing about all this..

Is you called me a troll for pointing out something that you yourself agree with..

And, you even went as far as to generate that troll pic with my Avatar head on it..

But that is neither here nor there!

I am just glad that you agree with me!

Granted, I never went as far as to call them childish.. I just considered them to be un-informed, and or confused