offtopic from "read before posting" topic

Discussion in 'Off Topic International' started by illo, Jun 11, 2002.

  1. Keerbassesync

    Keerbassesync Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9
    Before you post anything

    Ill sort out this problem. I didnt read your topics not once before posting them... Maybe, that message has reflected loading time?...?
     
  2. Myg

    Myg FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Re: Before you post anything...

    Eh exec, are you sure that is the best direction to take for the community?
     
  3. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Re: Before you post anything...

    in the aspect of luftwhiner's balance view "give moar, moar, moar! reds don't deserve, only golds! and remove pe-8 and meteor already given!" ?

    YES!
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2011
  4. Myg

    Myg FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    Just don't let em get to you bro.

    Why not have a new airplane poll instead, like HTC uses for its community?

    Every few weeks (however long it takes to make a plane) have a poll with 1 un-implemented plane from each country represented and get people to vote for the next plane to be implemented. You can even use the thread to collect information about each of the planes as well!

    Win-win, no?

    It means you can give, but not too much (because you control the planes to be polled), everyone's happy, right?

    This also balances itself out, because when all the cool rides from one country have been implemented, it means the cool ones which were forgotten before, but were from other countries will get attention! In the long-term it would serve everyone best, no?
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2011
  5. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    cool!
    except:

    1)graphic tool is awful and pyrcus tired and frustrated. no more new models until new graphic editor

    2)almost every principal day combat plane (>500...1000) is implemented already

    the only interesting airplanes i can consider as missing ones are:
    mustang mk.1
    barracuda mk.2
    d4y3 suisei, b6n2 tenzan (may be c6n-1b saiun is better?)
    tbd-1 devastator, sb2c-1 helldiver
    ki-48-2b
    z.1007/2 alcione

    he 111 is inferior to ju 88
    ki-21 is inferior to ki-49 which is not a real achievement over g4m
    barracuda2, swordfish, albacore, fulmar/firefly?
     
  6. Myg

    Myg FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    Thats the spirit, but its not just about which rides are cool? Maybe some iconic or niche ones might make the list as well?

    Im sure theres plenty out there, why don't you get a list from the community of planes of interest and you can add it to your own (as well)?

    Maybe if you could post a list of all the planes current in-game, we could work out whats missing and whats not! :)
     
  7. Myg

    Myg FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    RE: The modelling problems, why don't we invest time in a 3dsmax to wbmodel converter instead of a custom tool? Or some open source modelling tool instead of 3dsmax?
     
  8. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    1) actually we did votes of airplanes to-do 2000-2008.

    this brought many important airplanes, and some excessive ones like 109 f-2 and be-hated pe-8.

    i don't say it's bad.
    i'd say that in current few quantities of community the polls could be easily trolled. :shuffle:

    2) i cannot invest time because... because i have no sources of two graphic tools we possess. i'm not good in reverse engineering. i tried to convince some freelancer from my ex-colleagues, but i occasioned to be without money in 2010.

    3)on front-end we are almost at the limits:
    a)we used 125 slots and cannot add more. new airplanes only by removing some previous.
    b)we covered almost all day combat airplanes.
    c)flight math won't be changed anyway.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2011
  9. Myg

    Myg FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    1) Remove redundant planes, consolidate series into single models (most popular) to make space for others?

    2) Do you have the file format specifications for the models files/structs?

    3) Same as 1)?

    I dunno really exec, I don't know at all :_(
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2011
  10. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    1) which ones are redundant?

    2) some fragments of reverse engineering
     
  11. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    I'll chime in here as well...
    1) The ones flown very infrequently(example: Hurricane?? Lagg? Spit?? Ki? 109?). Ones that don't belong in WBFH list:
    .86) 109T-1 carrier version....never happened,
    .63) UFO ...no purpose for UFO.
    .81) Ki45...who actually flies that thing in the game, and with any success, what purpose, novelty?

    2/3) Some aircraft can be duplicated, yes? P-38J-25 please. :)
    P-38J-15 had boosted ailerons but now does not. P-38J-25 arrived with boosted ailerons AND dive recovery flaps.
    Gil has my performance information. :)


    I would like to propose:

    What I think would be a nice benefit for the P-38 Lightning aircraft line:

    .25) Mar 42-Jan 43 P-38F-1 (Should fly like P-38G 1.69 version)
    .81/.86) Oct 42-Mar 43 P-38G-10 (Should fly like P-38G 1.68 version)
    .26) Aug 43-Jan 44 P-38J-15 (Should fly like 1.68 version)
    .63) Jan 44-Sep 45 P-38J-25 (Should fly like 1.68 J-15 version but with boosted ailerons/dive flaps)
    .27) Jul 44-Sep 45 P-38L-5 (Should fly like 1.68 version)

    Makes sense to drop aircraft that just don't get used at all, and don't perform/function well.
    Promote aircraft that would be used most often.
     
  12. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    Bf 109 T has 4*50 bombs and could be very helpful for cv attacks. A6M has only 2*50 bombs.
    we can set statistics record for T and see whether it is unused.

    UFO could have some special features. aike forbidden us to use slot №63 (observer). may be server has specific treatment with it. we haven't studied the case carefully yet. to save the place, we moved UFO into observer slot, thus freeing one slot.

    ki-45 is attacker for japanese side, once we manage to geo-separate countries.

    p-38j-15-lo does not have anything boosted. only block 25 has dive recovery flaps and boosted ailerons. j-25-lo is quite equivalent to l-lo

    now:
    p-38g-10-lo 1942-08 (former date of p-38f-1-lo, specially for you, alw)
    p-38j-15-lo 1943-10 (date of p-38h-lo, because of engines)
    p-38l-1-lo 1944-07 (date of p-38j-25-lo, since equivalent)

    and sorry. we won't add two lightnings for one user, you.
    you already have a maximally improved schedule:
    Code:
    month   freehost     historical
    1942-03 ___________  P-38F (by ALW. sources?)
    1942-08 P-38G-10-LO  P-38F (343FG killed H6K)
    1943-04 ___________  P-38G (18FG+374FG killed Yamamoto. Ben Kesley crashed during tests of inverted spin in California)
    1943-10 P-38J-15-LO  P-38H (14FG @Crete, 55FG @8AF)
    1943-12 ___________  P-38J (20FG @UK)
    1944-07 P-38L-1-LO   P-38J-25-LO (C-47 with factory kits killed by friendly aa-fire over UK)
    1944-?? ___________  P-38L
    
    P-38J at date of P-38H because V-1710-89/91
    P-38L at date of P-38J-25 because P-38L-1 is identical to P-38J-25
    P-38G at date of P-38F just because it's a rare airplane and won't hurt RPS badly.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2011
  13. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

     
  14. Myg

    Myg FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    Hey ALW, I hope you have updated the installer mirrors you have in your sig, because it was updated to fix a serious bug on the 5th.

    Exec this whole situation the FH is in with planes is beyond my reckoning but please PM me what you got about the model format when you have a chance.

    Cheers.
     
  15. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    roger!


    p.s. alw, 50 bf 109 t-2 were used in norway as stol jabos ;-) really!
    p.p.s. p-61 is a night fighter
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2011
  16. -exec-

    -exec- FH Consultant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2000
    Messages:
    24,690
    Location:
    xUSSR
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    well, i charted your "14-22 months of waiting"

    as you can see, current blue fh rps has advantage over irl schedule, because on blue-dashed areas you have better performance than you could have in historical situation.

    same situation was with spitfire 5c that begun at date of 5b, but it's a fighter principal for balance.

    thus 5c was scheduled for later date, and 5b introduced into historical date.

    since 38 is not affecting balance such hard, it was shifted to earlier dates.

    japanese ki-43-2 was set for date of ki-43-1, and zeke52b for date of 52. but this was done for upgrading of inferior japanese aviation up to challenging level.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    I haven't seen any new updated version link in your post? New file identification to determine different versions... 1.69a beta , 1.69b beta , 1.69c beta , etc now?
     
  18. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

     
  19. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    I don't understand your chart....

    Are we using real life scheduling then, or aircraft that served in combat, or is it RPS balance, production numbers?, or all of the above at somebody's discretion? The purpose of the P-38 variants and release times I put up were to fill in large time gaps with credible aircraft. That's proper scheduling, aircraft that served in combat, balances RPS without effecting whiners, and have substantial production numbers.

    Why so many variants of these fighters, and only 3 for the P-38, when there are many variants of the P-38? :confused:
    8 x spit
    8 x 109
    8 x Yak
    7 x Ki
    5 x 190
    I still doubt 5 total (redundant/poor performing) of those from the list above are even used. IMHO I see more novelty aircraft added than useful. How about adding one variant to fill the gap of 22 months of an under-modeled aircraft. It is a huge gap between the 38-F (38-G now) and 38-J model, almost 2 years. Unnecessary and unfair. You say the 38G was added for me? Nothing was added. The 38F was only renamed 38G, made to fly like the 38F IRL (undermodeled 38G anyway), and released too early. If there was only one P-38 that could be added to the list, it should be the G-10.
    Release list would be like this:
    F-1
    G-10
    J-15
    L-5

    I'm with Myg when he says we should have aircraft that people will fly, and drop the transitory aircraft. It's not as though we have hundreds of people flying here, and 20 or 30 guys saying the aircraft are accurate historically so I'm way off. Right now, even though the 38G-10 replaced the 38F-1, by the time the 38G-10 or 38F-1 have been flying for less than half a year in the schedule, the F type variant (current G-10) loses it's edge quickly against other earlier released fighters. Having all 4 variants above, released in reasonable order would effect the balance....correcting it.

    There is an important missing variant, and we have a poorly performing 38G released too early. The F, when put back, should fly like the 38G now, and the 38G added between the F and J, should fly better than the F, and close to 38J-15 performance. That would be historically accurate for our RPS. :deal:

    Honestly, this whole thing with developers fighting the users over the years, rather than listening has caused many of them, some of them my friends and squad members to leave because of this two-sided mouth speaking. It's just me now, fighting for the P-38 to have light of day. Boa, Antred, Mumble, Looseleaf, Mcloud, Biles, Rickoo, Gil, they gave up on me, I think. :shuffle:

    So, what are you trying to do? Drive us away?
     
  20. -ALW-

    -ALW- Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2001
    Messages:
    2,086
    Location:
    Minot, North Dakota, USA
    Re: offtopic from "read before posting" topic

    I have just the one mirror file. Is there a link/filename you can provide for me so I can update the current version? Thanks