Latest Patch HURRICANES NOT STARTING AGAIN???
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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?

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 :)

.
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:

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:

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

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.'

Only 9 minutes? lol

Joseph Lucas, the Prince of Darkness.

:-P

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.

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

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 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?

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 ;)

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 :)

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

I am going to quote you on that one raaaid

JD
AKA_MAttE

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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!

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.

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!

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

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?

On spawn engine already heated was my question:grin:

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

+1 wtf!

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

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 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.

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

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!

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

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.

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! ;)

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.

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

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

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

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.

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)

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!

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.

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... :(

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.

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...

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.

+1. It's just that.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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? ;)

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

:)

Sarcasm?

;)

Will try this:

http://youtu.be/h89GRPFUhaM

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!