Inaccurate performance data for BOB fighters in COD comparing to RL data

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

and it is reviewed by Luthier and B6 directly. It's there precisely because it is the way to handle change requests of all types in software, we just don't do it by PM.

That may well be..

But

We have had similar bug/error/request threads in the past.. Even the original IL-2 had such thread.. And based on my experience with getting changes made to several planes in IL-2, most notable was the P38J ROC, your better off going direct to the source via PM or e-mail. For example I posted for months in the open forum (than the ubi IL2 forums) about the error in the P38J ROC and got no where.. Than I sent Oleg an e-mail with a short to the point message pointing out the error.. He e-mailed me back with one question, to which I responded with the answer, and the next IL2 patch corrected the P38J ROC error. wala change we can belive in!

As this thread will prove.. Posting in the open forum does have an up side, that being you get input from like minded people (read team effort).. The down side is you get input from the biased nay sayers that have no proof what so ever, but will do everything in their power to keep planes they don't like operating below their historic values.

So once you got your info, and you don't see any new info coming from the discussion, best to cut it off because keeping it open only gives the biased nay sayers another opportunity to spew their rant..

As you have seen in the past few pages.. They will never answer your questions.. In that they know any attempt in doing so will only prove how wrong they are.. So instead they will just keep ignoring those questions and either go off on some tangent topic or re-iterate something they already said that has already been debunked..

They are the purest definition (poster boys) of a waste of time!

Every min you spend typing to them is a min you could have spent typing up a report to send to 1C.

[Osprey]

You're not listening mate, forums and PM's are not how change requests are handled in the real world. The fact that Oleg chose this in the past underlines just what an unprofessional process he must have there. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about it, I make my living out of software QA so I'll just be smug and say that I know what I'm talking about.
It needs raising as a CR, but if you want to spam Luthiers inbox go ahead.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

You're not listening mate

Hardly..

I hear what your saying about that bug thread..

And I hear you about how things should work in a perfect world..

But as we all know the world is not perfect.. So i''ll just be smug and say that I know what works.. but if you want to contine to argue with the nay sayers in the open forum go ahead.

[Osprey]

It's not a thread or an open forum, it's a database. We're not talking about a perfect world, it's just basic software development process.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Osprey

It's not a thread or an open forum, it's a database. We're not talking about a perfect world, it's just basic software development process.

Ah.. my bad

I thought you were refering to one of the bug threads here in this forum.. That link you provided is a much more formal softare issue tracking system.. We use something simular (in house) where I work for the software I write.. With that said.. what section are you posting the 100 octane request in? I assume the 'Feature' section and not the 'Bug' section? Again, sorry for my misunderstanding! The day I saw your post I had just seen a bug list posted in this forum and I ASSumed you were refering to that thread! My bad!

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Ah.. my bad

I thought you were refering to one of the bug threads here in this forum.. That link you provided is a much more formal softare issue tracking system.. We use something simular (in house) where I work for the software I write.. With that said.. what section are you posting the 100 octane request in? I assume the 'Feature' section and not the 'Bug' section? Again, sorry for my misunderstanding! The day I saw your post I had just seen a bug list posted in this forum and I ASSumed you were refering to that thread! My bad!

lol, no worries, just oversight. I was worried for a second that you were doing a Kurfurst on me

Well I think there are multiple related problems but the main would be

Bug: Boost cut out does not apply boost power to the spitfire or hurricane and the boost gauge does not read 12lbs. According to the pilots notes it should.......blah blah.....FTH.....blah

Missing Feature: FMB, option to add either 87 or 100 octane fueled RAF aircraft to a mission. The flight models would be different for each type when full power is applied.