Is that how you percieve some of the negative posts? Some of the negativity has gone way past normal human interaction and dissatisfaction into the realm of petulent childishness. You wouldn't petition outside the theatre for 9 months would you?

I DO understand the frustration. Though I agree with Ace's comments regarding the purchase of hardware, I also see there's more to it than that. I've witnessed the same names here as I have at UBI for ten years now. We've all waited for this game for quite a while. CoD being put on the shelves in the state it is IS disappointing. I get that.

To be fair the arguing goes both ways. There's been immaturity on both sides. Niether side has been immune to it. I'm sure I've been part of it. Obviously it hasn't solved anything. At what point do we pick up the placcards and end the protesting of the theatre? It's been almost ten months. Heck, some have worn the placcard of discontent for almost five years.

This going back and forth makes what should be a great forum with intelligent, knowlegable people into a place that's no longer an enjoyment.

The cost of something is irrelevant. If something costs $5 or $5,000, if it doesn't work as it should then it's broken and you're entitled to complain.

What you also forget is that some people spent $2,500 for the sole reason of playing that $50 game, only to find out it was a steaming pile of faeces (albeit faeces with prospects). I'd say they're entitled to be a bit upset.

Hood

True. But Im using my PC for work (at home) too (apart from the mac Im working on, In my office). And I have above average salary for our standards. Still when I pay a big loan (monthly rate) for my apartment (I have two kids), all the bills....not that I have much left...BTW, average salary is only 929 bucks here....So like I said, 50 bucks for you 500 bucks for someone else....thers a reason why the game was much cheaper in Russia...
BTW I was clear earlier that the money spent on this game wasnt my main concern....performance issues....I want to play this badly...I mean I do but with some serious performance issues in some occasions. Thats why Im so eager to try the upcoming update..

Yes. They are the only one making "serious" ww2 combat sims...

Doesn't my ask even deserve a reply? Is it a unwise question or I missed something?
No harm trying again....cheers

[QUOTE=335th_GRAthos;389592]

PS. I am waiting for the day the Spitfire will run with 120octane fuel (or anything that makes it faster than my Bf109). Then, I will bring up the technical papers up to prove that the size of the turbine in my Bf109-E4 was larger than the one modelled by the 1C team therefore the 1,2ata (turbine pressure) gives a much lower performance than the one my engine in real life would bring... And since I am sure they never modelled the size of the turbine exactly (why should they) I am sure to be on the winning side ;)
Crazy world...

Hi Grathos,

You made me smile when I read your post above. Then I found this on the web:

When 150 octane fuel was introduced in mid-1944 the "boost" of the Griffon engine was able to be increased to +25 lbs, allowing the top speed to be increased by about 30 mph (26 kn; 48 km/h) to 400 mph (350 kn; 640 km/h) at 2,000 ft (610 m).[32]
The Mk XIV was used by the 2nd Tactical Air Force as their main high-altitude air superiority fighter in northern Europe with six squadrons operational by December 1944.[33]

PS. I have not seen you up on the ATAG server lately, but hope to meet up with you again soon.

Happy landings,

Talisman

I did test with the E3 and could reach 470 kph "on the deck". It really should be faster than SpitIa. And it isnt, in the game. So, you was right.

Both should be able to do ab. 500 km/h at the deck, RL Spitfire MK1 at 12 lbs (100 Octan) reached 500-505 km/h at the deck

You won't get an answer. Maddox Games has stopped giving any kind of timeframe estimates because of the flak they caught when the last estimates turned out to have been overly optimistic.

The cost is irrelevant, what is relevant is that excepting the Russian's, we all knew the state it was in upon release and yet still chose to purchase it. If you did no research into it's condition then more fool you. The anger displayed here is absolutely typical of people who will not accept any responsibility for their own actions and thus are always looking off load the blame onto somebody or something else.

Either the money is worth something to you in which case you damn well should have checked the condition of it before purchase or it's not worth anything to you in which case you're not whining. It's not like the issues started appearing days or weeks after launch, they were immediate and well publicised.

No one forced you into your purchase.

An unthinking opinion. Most of us pre-ordered it expecting a relatively finished product. I'd say peoples' expectations were for a playable game that needed polishing - similar to the original IL2. How that transfers into not taking responsibility etc I really don't know.

It's like anything you'll ever buy. If your expectations are reasonable and the product/service doesn't match those expectations, then complain away.

If you're responsible for that product/service then public relations is absolutely critical and that is in my opinion where the whole thing has fallen apart.

Personally I am very glad that updates have resumed even if the information is not provided direct but via Black6. It gives us hope.

Hood