Friday Update, March 30, 2012

I'm not a troll. I have both games and I'm telling you World Of Planes is better , you can disagree but you people have to stop going on about 'COD is the king and every other game is crap' . And I'm not an arcade fan , I have spent thousands on simulator hardware.

[addman]

Two different games aiming for totally different types of players, why is anybody comparing the two?! If you want comparisons, compare War Thunder with World of Warplanes, the outcome of that comparison will be very swift though IMO. The only thing you can compare CloD with right now is IL-2 1946 and maybe RoF (because it's a WW1 sim but still on a similar level as CloD).

[addman]

Originally Posted by albx

fail, how can you compare a purely game arcade like world of warplanes with war thunder? WoW doesn't have any cockpit, no land or takeoff, no engine start/stop, no control on gears, nothing at all, like world of tanks but in the sky...

They are both free to play MMORPG's, that's why they are comparable IMO.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by albx

CEM? where is? only overheating is modelled right now... so stop

You miss the mixture management, the prop pitch = engine revs, the water and oil radiator management, just to mention a couple of CEM items. Before criticizing something next time, take the pain to check your information, really.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Insuber

You miss the mixture management, the prop pitch = engine revs, the water and oil radiator management, just to mention a couple of CEM items. Before criticizing something next time, take the pain to check your information, really.

Mhm... almost all of those are in IL2 too... the difference is in CLoD there's no OVERHEAT alert.

IMO BoM will demostrate the complexity of this new engine. Somebody said that the russian pilots had to manage multiple levels to do the same thing that a german pilot could do with only one.

Now IF russian planes will work as the german planes than this will be proof that this COMPLEX Engine Management is an hoax.

My dream is to have a compulsory procedure at startup having to follow the machine's condition during the flight. I hope that in future I will have to manage the startup/taxi/takeoff of my tempest as Clostermann did.

[6S.Tamat]

A huge problem of Cod is the missing debug system (and i don't have a blind trust in the developers until they proof to deserve it):
for CEM:
I would like to have the possibility to record the engine simulation data to see how deep is the simulation.
Air temp, pistons, fuel consumption, air pressure etc etc etc
Now i see that if on the bf i switch the magnetos nothing is happening..
for DM:
same thing on Dm, ability to record the precise damage data: could be different for server side and client side, allowing perhaps the client to have only the one about his own plane.
time of the event, type of damage, type of bullet that hit, damage amount.
for now i see only what i can read on chat and what i see, but nothing else confirm for example that a type of bullet makes more damage of another.
for Physics:
same thing of the DM:
air condition(temp,pressure,wind etc), AoA, IAS, TAS, lift for wing section etc etc with all the parameters.
For now i see only a problematic simulation of the atmosphere and no acrobatic plane to test the simulation as promised.


To be sure to be understood, I really hope to have a good simulation, but A: the trust in the developer is still to be gain, B: I have no real evidence of the correct simulation now. Obviously that does not mean that now it is not correct, it means simply that without evidence there is not YES or NO, there is only a perhaps..

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by 6S.Tamat

A huge problem of Cod is the missing debug system (and i don't have a blind trust in the developers until they proof to deserve it):
for CEM:
I would like to have the possibility to record the engine simulation data to see how deep is the simulation.
Air temp, pistons, fuel consumption, air pressure etc etc etc
Now i see that if on the bf i switch the magnetos nothing is happening..
for DM:
same thing on Dm, ability to record the precise damage data: could be different for server side and client side, allowing perhaps the client to have only the one about his own plane.
time of the event, type of damage, type of bullet that hit, damage amount.
for now i see only what i can read on chat and what i see, but nothing else confirm for example that a type of bullet makes more damage of another.
for Physics:
same thing of the DM:
air condition(temp,pressure,wind etc), AoA, IAS, TAS, lift for wing section etc etc with all the parameters.
For now i see only a problematic simulation of the atmosphere and no acrobatic plane to test the simulation as promised.


To be sure to be understood, I really hope to have a good simulation, but A: the trust in the developer is still to be gain, B: I have no real evidence of the correct simulation now. Obviously that does not mean that now it is not correct, it means simply that without evidence there is not YES or NO, there is only a perhaps..

IIRC a guy developed few months ago a C# script to extract performance data from tests. I will look for it.

[6S.Tamat]

Originally Posted by Insuber

IIRC a guy developed few months ago a C# script to extract performance data from tests. I will look for it.

that's a good thing. but i still wonder why the developers didn't do.. it is the better evidence of their good work...

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Mhm... almost all of those are in IL2 too... the difference is in CLoD there's no OVERHEAT alert.

Manu I was reacting to the guy troll ... ehmmm, saying that CEM in COD is limited to overheating. As far as the Il2: 1946 comparison of CEM, I know that 1946 has still some advantages, but not in CEM: afaik the prop pitch of 109 E-1 & E-3 are *automagic* in 1946 - i.e. not historical. The mixture management in 1946 is there, but very simplified. The oil radiator is not present in 1946. The water radiator ... ahemmmm - very questionable with the big red "engine overheat" message.

Ciao!

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Manu I was reacting to the guy troll ... ehmmm, saying that CEM in COD is limited to overheating. As far as the Il2: 1946 comparison of CEM, I know that 1946 has still some advantages, but not in CEM: afaik the prop pitch of 109 E-1 & E-3 are *automagic* in 1946 - i.e. not historical. The mixture management in 1946 is there, but very simplified. The oil radiator is not present in 1946. The water radiator ... ahemmmm - very questionable with the big red "engine overheat" message.

Ciao!

I did not said that CloD is limited to overheating. IIRC the Overheat! label in IL2 1946 is used to alert the pilot that something is wrong with the engine: sometimes it does not mean actually that the temperature is high.

Of course many planes are not correctly modelled (both original and modded ones) and I'm not stating that 1946 is better in the EM department... I think that simply it's not SO better to be called "Complex" (just like the graphic engine.. Clod is better looking of course, but 1946 is 10 years old... it's not difficult having new hardware and 3Gb VRAM).

As Tamat says: we need a SDK to test the accuracy of the models because for that I know in the code there can be many functions with many commented lines returning wrong/not precise results (since the sim has been released in alpha stage it's very probable).

If the debug SDKs could be provided to us then Luthier could have free help about FM/DM/CEM...