Friday update and discussions 2011-02-25

[fireflyerz]

If its wrong its wrong, and it is , the creator has said as much , what more can be done?......thats up to Oleg and team , but i hope they do put it right cos it looks even worse in the spit , like the pilot is watching AVATAR on a 42 ' screen.

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Skarphol

Sorry if anyone has mentioned this during the 13 pages, but
I wonder what has happened to the shadow of the stabiliser:


It hasn't been like this before?

Skarphol

Not real sure what you are trying to point out here. If it is the separation from the shadow to the object then the position of the sun is a highly determining factor here. Be a bit more specific about your concerns? Looks to me like the sun is iikely hanging at a 17:00 or 08:00 position and that stabilizer is facing towards the sun.

[jayrc]

Great work Oleg and team, Thank you

[zapatista]

yes the aircraft crew are still a little to small, but currently this is a relatively small error (much less severe then when first raised many months ago)

for those who havnt payed attention in the past 2 or 3 years of updates and discussion here: pilots are modeled a little smaller because..... initially there was a problem with their limbs sticking out of the aircraft during some of the movements they made, and keeping that WOULD have been very odd !

it has to do with object collisions, the pilots should bump into the walls and not go partially through them, but right now with the articulated skeletal movements they have implemented (see pilot climbing out of cockpit video) the limb movements are a little larger then desired, and they could sometimes poke outside the limited space they are in

so right now as a compromise the pilots are a little smaller then they should be on average, and it is a priority fix to be released in one of the early patches.

note: oleg already confirmed the 1e person view inside the cockpit has the pilot eye level at the correct hight, so for the players themselves it is not a problem

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

[Skarphol]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

Not real sure what you are trying to point out here.

Yes, it is the separation of the shadow and the stabiliser. No big deal, but I've never seen that in earlier screenshots. I saw the radiomast and its shadow separated once, but never a big thing like the stabilisers. It looks the light is shining through an opening between the stabiliser and the fuselage.

Skarphol

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

Hehe. You have hit the nail on the head here. My forum refers to it as Sperglording. The attempts made by a lot of this community to find (what seems like a competition for) the most minute things to go nuclear over is astounding. I've tried over and over to point this out, but it never seems to get through. Being the biggest whiner isn't a good thing, and it must be understood that most people that are going to play this aren't going to care that the 3rd screw from the left on the instrument panel being misplaced by a millimeter doesn't really matter to most CFS enthusiasts. We aren't as worried about that as "is the FM accurate, and is the damage model accurate? Is the plane being flown the correct model?" To be perfectly honest a lot of the stuff that gets harped on I think damages the IP more than it helps. If all an outsider sees is complaining from what they percieve to be the biggest and most informed fans then they will avoid the game because it gives an impression that the game is not going to be worthy of their time.

That seems to be what is really lost on this community. The issue over absolute perfection to the letter over what is possible or relevant.

[Richie]

Originally Posted by Zorin

There are definitely pilots that fit the bill.

Bellyaching time is over

[airmalik]

Originally Posted by Bakelit

Looking at period pictures the pilot figure is too small. The 109E cockpit was not as spacious as the new screenshots suggest.

I suspect the pilots are small on purpose. Looking at the video of the cramped 109 cockpit it's obvious that a correctly sized pilot model would stick out of the sides of the cockpit since it won't 'squish' like a human body.

[kancerosik]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Oleg, please watch this video and fix the midget pilots they look really silly.

do u think that the medium high of te te population during the 30s and 40s decades is equal to the pressent days? (supposing that the video is from 1980 )

Pd: that pilot is really tall