Friday update and discussions 2011-02-25

[Sauf]

Doolittleraider i think Zapatista's post explains it pretty well, the developer's are not ignoring anyone, its comparable to when you restore a bike/car or build a model, you tend to know all the little mistakes that no-one else can see. Pretty sure Oleg knows his stuff and if we have some small errors in release version it will be because there are more important issues that need looking at first.

Originally Posted by 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!

[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.

[Peffi]

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;228505] How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”? bla bla bla
QUOTE]

Question for Skoshi Tiger: How many times has Oleg said that "the color is dependent on the lighting conditions" ? Do you know how many times or are you just in a mood to criticize people that voice their honest opinion because you are whiner yourself?

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!

Good stuff, Skoshi Tiger. Regarding whine quality, how about some new whines? The old whines are racked on "ignore" because they've become redundant and they leave a bad after taste. BTW, what was the best year for whine? We must not forget the "where's-my-trim-on-a-slider?" variety under RBJ's label. It was certainly one of the most interesting offerings which perhaps will never be surpassed.

[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

[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

[McHilt]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

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.

What he's trying to point out is that the shadow from the stabilizer has a gap of sunlit metal where it should be shady given the fact that the stabilizer is fixed to the fuselage. Even if the sun was from 18.00 or 07.00 as you point out the shadows should be accordingly thrown, say long and more horizontal or, in case it's facing the sun, no shadow at all or maybe just a few inches under that surface. Here in this pic the sun is at between 14.00 or 11.00. and therefore the shadow should be completely solid at the base where the stabilizer is fixed to the body... it's not what it should be anyway, it's like they're offset and detached from the aft fuselage. (take a look at the above posted picture of the Bf's and notice the shadow, it's the same sunposition more or less)

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by McHilt

What he's trying to point out is that the shadow from the stabilizer has a gap of sunlit metal where it should be shady given the fact that the stabilizer is fixed to the fuselage. Even if the sun was from 18.00 or 07.00 as you point out the shadows should be accordingly thrown, say long and more horizontal or, in case it's facing the sun, no shadow at all or maybe just a few inches under that surface. Here in this pic the sun is at between 14.00 or 11.00. and therefore the shadow should be completely solid at the base where the stabilizer is fixed to the body... it's not what it should be anyway, it's like they're offset and detached from the aft fuselage. (take a look at the above posted picture of the Bf's and notice the shadow, it's the same sunposition more or less)

Actually, the stabilizer is not fixed to the fuselage on this model, it tilts and so it has a small gap. Look at the shots again boys and be marveled. I do think however that the gap might be a bit much, but then again shadows are funny things both in life and in games.