Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Page 15 of 17

« First

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- Daidalos Team discussions (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=202)

- - FW190 FM Change (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=29083)

K_Freddie

06-12-2012 09:00 PM

Reliable sources or not.. One thing that can be more or less factual and is represented in the game (and improving over time) is the relative performances of each aircraft, it's advantages and disadvantages - this has always seemed to fit the bill, and quality control of these features are important, if you do not want to destroy the online game.

Sure minor hiccups here and there, but essentially it has taught those who have taken the time to know their favourite a/c, how to fly it to it's max. In this, IL2 has been more satisfying than any other flight sim.

:grin:

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

06-13-2012 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Z1024 (Post 434374)

And how do you know all that exactly? Are you affiliated with 1C/the original Maddox team or TD or know what their processes are? Or you just believe in that without any factual evidence?

A legitimate question. We choose those sources, that - as we do think - have the best documentable historical authenticity. But we never tested such planes ourself, of course, so we cannot be sure 100%. Telling so would be a lie.
Sometimes we very eagerly discuss internally, which source is the best. Sometimes we even have to do reasonable estimations, if sources are impossible to get. We are normal people, we are 'also cooking only with water' - as we say in germany.
But we are very careful with what we use as source and what not - be assured.

II/JG54_Emil

06-13-2012 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar (Post 434452)

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

IceFire

06-14-2012 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar (Post 434371)

Of course it was sarcasm. It one way to tell people, that they said something stupid, without being to honest about it.

Most FM discussions are about late war uberplanes, again and again. That shows me, what kind of spirit that is, where the attitude is, and that tells me where the oppinions come from and that tells me, how I can judge it.

I didn't say, the stock FMs are holy and correct - and especially not in case of the La's (Haha!). But its not only the late war planes, its everywhere in the game, lots of planes need to be revised and more over: reseached with care!
FM's are gonna be looked at, one after another. There are some quite good informations about La-7 over at one or two other threads in this forum. Thats a good thing - so no sarcasm there. But 'the game is dying' because of what? Sorry, that won't get something different from me.

I'd love to see a furious argument about the Avia B.534, J8A, or Cr.42 :)

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

06-14-2012 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil (Post 434477)

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

I bet, they would rise up instead. Talking about FMs is one thing, talking about sources the next. They would be questioned anyway. It would be like opening a can of worms. In the end we would have to deliver proving stuff for all we change - order to stop discussions - as long as the change doesn't please anyone.

However, thats not up to me, as I do not own the references about FMs (I'm a cockpitmaker guy). :(

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

06-14-2012 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IceFire (Post 434748)

I'd love to see a furious argument about the Avia B.534, J8A, or Cr.42 :)

LOL, me too! :grin:

ElAurens

06-16-2012 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EJGr.Ost_Caspar (Post 434859)

LOL, me too! :grin:

This, by multiple orders of magnitude.

The early war aircraft are so fascinating, and the interwar designs more so.

The last of the biplanes were very competitive with the early monoplanes at their time of introduction, and some of the early monoplane designs were simply brilliant in their day (as short as it was). For instance you can make a very valid argument that the PZL P11 was the best fighter in the world when it was introduced, the same for the I 16 as well. If the world economy had been better in the mid 30's, my beloved Curtiss Hawk 75 could have been flying in numbers in 1935.

It was an amazing era of innovation in aviation, all over the globe, and focusing on 1944 blinds you to some great aircraft designs that set the standards for what was to come.

EJGr.Ost_Caspar

06-16-2012 06:49 PM

Well said.

JtD	06-17-2012 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by II/JG54_Emil (Post 434477)

Excellent.
It would be great to reference these sources or even better to quote them.
Then the endless discussions will most likely stop.

References 1
References 2
References 3
References 4
References 5

Going through just 100000 pages of the above sources should give anyone a fairly accurate impression of the Fw 190. While the discussions would hardly stop, they at least become interesting and useful.

Shardur

06-18-2012 04:31 AM

How do you afford all those documents and books? Do you actually have to spend hundreds of bugs to get good data?

I'd gladly spend some of my free time studying the technical specs and performance data of fighter aircraft, but I'm a student and I can't afford all the reference data.

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Page 15 of 17

« First

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page