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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

MP

Agreed 100%

Quoted for truth

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!