Answers to Community Questions

[JG52Uther]

Come on guys, please don't turn this in to a discussion thread.

[Stublerone]

Lol, Still don't know, why this warthunder is still mentioned. It is not comparable, you do not have the viewing distances, the lod, the behaviour of invironment. So it is not relevant to learn anything from warthunder, except perhaps some effects, when they run better. But how to evaluate, if the game runs in atotally different kind of genre with totally different goal? I bet, that due to its lack of details in every aspect, I will be able to run it at 60fps easily. It is a console game. Please do not compare complicated games with easy programmed games, which could be made with some web designers doing a different profession just for fun.

Sorry, but this is total fail to ever compare it. It is like comparing world of tanks with tiger vs t34. And its like asking, why tiger vs t34 needs more resources, although wot has better graphics (by the way: wot is fun sometimes, but the new reworked engine is a big szep back, although all the casual gamers do not see it technically).

Please leave warthunder, console il2 games and world of warplanes out of this sim forum, as they are a totally other world.

[tintifaxl]

...

[David198502]

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?
after 1,5 years, there is still too much confusion about the different types of planes, and how they perform the best way,and how to get the most out of them.
For example every month there is another thread about the prop pitch management of the 109, and even among the experienced 109pilots there doesnt seem to be a consensus on whats the best way...
for example: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34328
there is historical information around in the net and in books, but we dont know whats implemented in game, what works best, and how it is intended to work...


Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.

trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...

[klem]

Originally Posted by David198502

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?.........................

Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.

trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...

Isn't this the point, the FMs are too far off?

Luthier has said 'Absolutely' to putting more effort into getting the CoD FMs right if we demonstrate they are wrong. That is where our effort should be and his efforts will follow.

Even if you get the best info on how to fly "the CoD 109" properly it will still not be right if the FM isn't brought into line with the flight manual.

Someone needs to fly the 109 against historical data and give him the results. Most people are just complaining the FMs are not right and posting a few words about it ("its too slow at SL", "it doesn't deliver 1.3ata at x metres altitude") but not proving the point effectively so who is Luthier to believe when member A just says one thing and member B says something different? Fly the tests and give him the data from his own FMs. You can do this by hand, making notes etc as you fly (tricky!) or use something like I use here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=10

And yes, it does take some time and effort whichever way you do it. But why should Luthier listen to any beta tester who doesn't return proper test results?

[Fergal69]

I would like to express a thank you for Luther for taking the time to go through questions raised & for answering them.

I experienced a big improvement just by upgrading from Windows XP to Winows 7 (64 bit), so flying over London now, albeit on lowish settings doesn't cause my system to freeze, so I'm happy.

When funds allow, then I'll be working on upgrading the rest of my system, starting with a graphics card.

PS - developers/programmers - are you all in a Lottery syndicate & should you win would you all quit or carry on improving ClOD? I for one wouldn't blame you for all walking out & saying stuff it after some of the comments that have been made.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by klem

And yes, it does take some time and effort whichever way you do it. But why should Luthier listen to any beta tester who doesn't return proper test results?

+1