Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 09-29-2012, 11:57 AM
MadTommy MadTommy is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by banned View Post
They need to release the update through Steam now.
No no no.. once that happens we are left with what we have until the supposed sequel.

There is room for significant improvements in this patch. Its good but not ready.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-29-2012, 12:36 PM
CKY_86 CKY_86 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 54
Default

Could a kind fellow post some pics or the S-26's weapons?
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-29-2012, 12:42 PM
Trumper Trumper is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadTommy View Post
No no no.. once that happens we are left with what we have until the supposed sequel.

There is room for significant improvements in this patch. Its good but not ready.
Well said,don't let them disappear until it is fixed.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-29-2012, 12:49 PM
ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
ATAG_Snapper ATAG_Snapper is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadTommy View Post
No no no.. once that happens we are left with what we have until the supposed sequel.

There is room for significant improvements in this patch. Its good but not ready.
+1

Lots of "hotfixes" required before this beta Release Candidate goes retail via Steam.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-29-2012, 02:00 PM
senseispcc senseispcc is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 598
Default

.
+2

A lot of corrections and not all details
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-29-2012, 02:13 PM
Tree_UK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Do the ships still float in the air?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-29-2012, 02:27 PM
pstyle pstyle is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 328
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree_UK View Post
Do the ships still float in the air?
I've not seen any doing this at all... fingers crossed
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-29-2012, 03:09 PM
ATAG_Snapper's Avatar
ATAG_Snapper ATAG_Snapper is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,286
Default

One thing that puzzles me is, do the devs actually FLY their own sim? I'm dead serious on this, and not being facetious whatsoever. My reasoning?

1) First thing I did after installing the new beta patch was to run some quick (VERY quick) tests on the Spitfire 2a and 1a 100 octane. Went into Quick Mission, selected Cross Country Flight.....and took off and climbed. Easy peasy. In this case I noted it took 20% throttle to start both aircraft. Take off roll at 9 lbs/6.25 lbs (full throttle resp), 3000 rpms, 100% rad (full open). On wheels up I held to level flight, coarsening pitch to 2850 rpms and closing rad to 50%. Watching oil & glycol temps, increased climb to maintain 185 mph IAS. All fine temps-wise, maintaining this combat climbout. At 18K feet (2a)/22K feet (1a 100 octane) the engine began sputtering, losing power, with rpms jumping wildly between 2400 and 3000. No damage reported in Damage Window; temps OK (ie oil < 95, glycol < 110 for both aircraft). The only way to smooth the engine vibrations and get partial climbing power back was to go Fine Pitch -- 300O rpms, but temps climbed with rad fully opened. Aborted climb, engine resumed normal operation below 16K feet with no apparent damage.

Each test here took about 10 minutes, but clearly no dev has done this, otherwise why wasn't it fixed OR reported in the readme? Sloppy.

2) I didn't do any tests on the Hurricanes. But how long would it take a dev to jump in the cockpit and discover the wretched thing wouldn't start? (Especially when the same problem had occurred in beta 1.07 and fixed in beta 1.08 ). Again, sloppy.

I'm baffled by the testing protocols, or rather, the lack thereof. If such ridiculously simple performance issues such as these are missed, how on earth are more complex issues dealt with?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-29-2012, 03:31 PM
Tree_UK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATAG_Snapper View Post
One thing that puzzles me is, do the devs actually FLY their own sim? I'm dead serious on this, and not being facetious whatsoever. My reasoning?

1) First thing I did after installing the new beta patch was to run some quick (VERY quick) tests on the Spitfire 2a and 1a 100 octane. Went into Quick Mission, selected Cross Country Flight.....and took off and climbed. Easy peasy. In this case I noted it took 20% throttle to start both aircraft. Take off roll at 9 lbs/6.25 lbs (full throttle resp), 3000 rpms, 100% rad (full open). On wheels up I held to level flight, coarsening pitch to 2850 rpms and closing rad to 50%. Watching oil & glycol temps, increased climb to maintain 185 mph IAS. All fine temps-wise, maintaining this combat climbout. At 18K feet (2a)/22K feet (1a 100 octane) the engine began sputtering, losing power, with rpms jumping wildly between 2400 and 3000. No damage reported in Damage Window; temps OK (ie oil < 95, glycol < 110 for both aircraft). The only way to smooth the engine vibrations and get partial climbing power back was to go Fine Pitch -- 300O rpms, but temps climbed with rad fully opened. Aborted climb, engine resumed normal operation below 16K feet with no apparent damage.

Each test here took about 10 minutes, but clearly no dev has done this, otherwise why wasn't it fixed OR reported in the readme? Sloppy.

2) I didn't do any tests on the Hurricanes. But how long would it take a dev to jump in the cockpit and discover the wretched thing wouldn't start? (Especially when the same problem had occurred in beta 1.07 and fixed in beta 1.08 ). Again, sloppy.

I'm baffled by the testing protocols, or rather, the lack thereof. If such ridiculously simple performance issues such as these are missed, how on earth are more complex issues dealt with?
I have been asking this very same question for a long time, but I always get shouted down.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-29-2012, 03:32 PM
Tree_UK
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Can you now hear that your aircraft has taken damage?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.