Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by MIRGERVIN

i cant bellieve there is nothing about fixing the spit mk1 and mk1a and hurri boost. do they not realise it dosent work or am i just crazy?

Originally Posted by Talisman

Why the boost cut-out operation does not work properly and why we appear to have less boost available than was the case in history with 100 Octane fuel is a puzzle to me. To read so many combat reports by veterans about how they used the boost cut-out and the surge of extra power they obtained and not get that experince in CloD has been very dissapointing to say the least.

Are these listed in the bugtracker? http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...s?set_filter=1

If these issues do not have many votes the devs may consider it not important. Please register and vote to let them know what community priorities are.

I can see only one entry for Spit Ia there. http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84
This should mean to the devs that others are modelled correctly. They can not read all forum threads.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Ataros

Are these listed in the bugtracker? http://www.il2bugtracker.com/project...s?set_filter=1

If these issues do not have many votes the devs may consider it not important. Please register and vote to let them know what community priorities are.

I can see only one entry for Spit Ia there. http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/84
This should mean to the devs that others are modelled correctly. They can not read all forum threads.

With all due respect and again, I may be ignorant, but shouldnt this be a given? Shouldn't the devs' own research have been used to establish what the correct engine paramaters and historical data was?

If historical data is genuinely split on whether 87 or 100 was used, why not introduce 87/100 variants of all planes, or of only the hurricane, lets say, and leave only 100 octane spits, for example?

But most of all - regardless of the engine management, boost cut outs etc, are the ingame planes showing performance that accords to an 87 octane or 100 octane version? Or neither? What historical data is even being used here?

Also, lets keep in mind that just making the planes perform like 100 octane, 12lb boosted versions at normal engine boosts is not a good solution, because the real things couldnt operate fully boosted all the time.

What we clearly need here is a proper set of graphs showing just which historical data is being used, and how the ingame planes compare.

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Maybe the issue shouldn't be called "100 octane" but "+12 emergency boost". It doesn't matter if the flight model can't simulate the effects of different octane ratings, but it can for sure simulate more horse power for a engine.

You're right, assuming the engine didn't perform any better at lower boosts on the 100 octane stuff. But I think we all know what is being talked about here and that is whether the allied planes we have ingame are acting like 87 octane, 6lb? boost planes or 100 octane, 12lb (for a short time) boosted planes - and whether they match the historical performance of one or the other.

Myself, I don't know what the correct figures and octane is. But I want this SORTED above all else save framerate. This is one of the most basic aspects of the sim, and it shouldnt take a bug ticket to have it fixed. It's been a year+ since the sim came out. This should have been fixed on R(elease) day + 1

[Gourmand]

i hope we can have some news from the patch today...
i'm impatient to beta-test it

[albx]

Originally Posted by Gourmand

i hope we can have some news from the patch today...
i'm impatient to beta-test it

well, i would like to have the beta patch instead of the news

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Originally Posted by albx

well, i would like to have the beta patch instead of the news

.............Surely you mean the 'Alpha' patchhehe

[addman]

Originally Posted by Plt Off JRB Meaker

.............Surely you mean the 'Alpha' patchhehe

No no no, it's simple. It's the beta version of a patch for the beta version of a game.

[Ataros]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

With all due respect and again, I may be ignorant, but shouldnt this be a given? Shouldn't the devs' own research have been used to establish what the correct engine paramaters and historical data was?

This is what they did. If you think your research results are different from the devs' ones you have a great opportunity to let them know using the bugtracker to post data, graphs, test videos, etc. Otherwise they may never find out their research was not correct.

As we know they fired some guys who failed to deliver a perfect sim in 2011. New guys probably are fixing only those things which they are aware of and which have enough evidence supporting them because the devs are extremely pressed for time with the sequel by the publishers including UBI. They are a small team and can not afford paying testers for thorough flight tests and research. If we do not tell them something is wrong they will never know it is wrong.

If we want to help there is a bugtracker to post all relevant proofs, graphs and figures. Just a tool to have all data in one place because the devs do not have time to read many forum threads.

[irR4tiOn4L]

Originally Posted by Ataros

This is what they did. If you think your research results are different from the devs' ones you have a great opportunity to let them know using the bugtracker to post data, graphs, test videos, etc. Otherwise they may never find out their research was not correct.

As we know they fired some guys who failed to deliver a perfect sim in 2011. New guys probably are fixing only those things which they are aware of and which have enough evidence supporting them because the devs are extremely pressed for time with the sequel by the publishers including UBI. They are a small team and can not afford paying testers for thorough flight tests and research. If we do not tell them something is wrong they will never know it is wrong.

If we want to help there is a bugtracker to post all relevant proofs, graphs and figures. Just a tool to have all data in one place because the devs do not have time to read many forum threads.

So what you are saying is that, even though the research was wrong and the team knows the earlier team delivered a flawed product which needs across the board revision, its up to us to do the analysis (with no tools)? What kind of development team relies only on a community bugtracker?

I realise that this is not the fault of the present team, and that they are being pushed in other directions, but I want to voice my DEEP displeasure at whoever is ultimately responsible for this mess (not the dev team) for releasing a flawed product and refusing to allocate the resources needed to fix it. Sims are not the most popular games but this is surely the best way to kill them altogether.

Having been made aware very early of the flaws in their FM's, it's the publishers/devs responsibility to check each FM, make sure it conforms to the historical data, including correct engine parameters, and to deliver a TIMELY patch to correct such serious deficiencies. Most of the FM's HAVE been raised on the bugtracker anyway. Fixing them does not mean restraining yourself to the issue raised on that bugtracker though. If the research shows they are not using the proper fuel and not performing like the period aircraft, it doesnt matter whether the fix includes things (like 87/100 octane boost issues) that are not on the bugtracker. They are not here to respond solely to a bugtracker (that is only an aid).

And anyway, if what you said was true, and only the Spit Ia was on the bugtracker, then the devs would not be changing almost every plane's FM. Either the data used is correct, or it is not!

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos

To all those following the development of the 87 vs XXX octane fuel (XXX= fill in the number as per your discretion), JG52Uther posted a very interesting screenshot on another thread:

It sounds like that quote is talking about loadouts and selecting fuels to use, not whether the plane FM's will be changed to the proper fuel.

Having said that, correcting incorrect engine performance and fuel grade is not a 'feature' it's a research cockup. It is not something for a sequel!

I mean, what exactly are we simulating here? A hypothetical battle of britain where the RAF used inferior fuel instead and likely lost the war? Why the hell are we simulating that?

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by irR4tiOn4L

What kind of nonsense is this? So what you are saying is that, even though their research was wrong and they KNOW the earlier team delivered a flawed product which needs across the board revision, its up to us to do the analysis (with no tools) and point out to them their flaws? What kind of development team relies only on a community bugtracker?

I realise that this is not the fault of the present team, and that they are being pushed in other directions, but I want to voice my DEEP displeasure at whoever is ultimately responsible for this mess (not the dev team) for releasing a flawed product and refusing to allocate the resources needed to fix it. Sims are not the most popular games but this is surely the best way to kill them altogether.

Having been made aware very early of the flaws in their FM's, it's the publishers/devs responsibility to check each FM, make sure it conforms to the historical data, including correct engine parameters, and to deliver a TIMELY patch to correct such serious deficiencies. Most of the FM's HAVE been raised on the bugtracker anyway. Fixing them does not mean restraining yourself to the issue raised on that bugtracker though. If the research shows they are not using the proper fuel and not performing like the period aircraft, it doesnt matter whether the fix includes things (like 87/100 octane boost issues) that are not on the bugtracker. They are not here to respond solely to a bugtracker (that is only an aid).

Not to mention, they seem to be going the opposite direction to what the historical data apparently (according to some) suggests, and it may well be because of the 87/100 octane issue. I'm not saying I know better, but I would at least like to know what and who is correct and why there is stil no consensus on some very basic performance data.

And anyway, if what you said was true, and only the Spit Ia was on the bugtracker, then the devs would not be changing almost every plane's FM. As for voting systems? Beyond eliminating the most frivolous complaints and indicating the community's perception of the severity of a bug (but the devs should use their dicretion anyway), this has no place on a BUG tracker! Either the data used is correct, or it is not!

It sounds like that quote is talking about loadouts and selecting fuels to use, not whether the plane FM's will be changed to the proper fuel.

Having said that, correcting incorrect engine performance and fuel grade is not a 'feature' it's a research cockup. It is not something for a sequel! This is a simulation of the Battle of Britain and the correct aircraft and engine performance should have been in the game.

I mean, what exactly are we simulating here? A hypothetical battle of britain where the RAF used inferior fuel instead and likely lost the war? Why the hell are we simulating that?

i fully agree with that, the main errors like no 100% octane available to all spitfires and hurricanes FROM THE START OF BoB, is a major error that needs to be corrected QUICKLY and as a matter of priority, its a MAJOR oversight that significantly reduces the value of the game as a SIMULATOR !! they are in fact penalizing the allied side with a approx 10% performance hit across the board

however ........

up untill now, for many people like myself, the sim just hasnt performed well enough to even test this out properly. with my mid end pc that according to release information should have played the sim fairly well with some elements toned down, i still have:
- micro-freezes, and major slowdowns and total screen freezes when approaching some ground objects (like trying to fly through a hanger or low over some buildings),
- and some CDT's at other points in gameplay.
- plus, right now you cant even set your FoV to the correct setting for the screen size you have, so all ingame objects (houses, planes, etc) are distorted in size by either roughly 30% to large or to small, totally destroying the correct sense of speed you should get from visual ques while flying in the game, aside for it being rather silly to expect us to fly around in Lilliput land or play with dinky toy objects and pretend we are "simulating" anything.

and there are a few more serious problems like this.........
- for eg the 109 ground handling is totally artificial and very "console game like" instead of simulating a ww2 pilot experience. the plane is nowhere near as difficult or sensitive to land or takeoff as it should be (iirc over 50% of 109's during ww2 were lost during takeoff and landing accidents, rather then in combat). right now a 9 yo with a few pointers can safely do it, is that really simulation ?

but we simply havnt gotten to the point of being able to address most of those issues because the grafix engine has been performing so poorly, only once that is running well will the other aspects be more glaringly obvious, and requests for fixes be more vocal

[ATAG_Bliss]

Great update fellas.

Here's hoping we can have skins, clouds, and no CTD's. I can't wait to be able to use some of the great skins floating around and then be able to hide away in the clouds when I'm in trouble

Here's hoping for huge formation flying, skins, and of course, those sorely needed clouds in the sky!

Hope we get something this week. Can't wait to test.