So, what мs your opinion?

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by Zembla JG13, Oct 13, 2004.

  1. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    So, what Is your opinion?

    First of all I didn't post this thread to get flamed on, I'd rather have a constructive discussion about how we can improve FH (in your opinions) without making things worse. Constructive, so flames would be inappropriate. This is a thread I'd like to dedicate to get a summary of the opinions of the people who fly FH (not only the people who post FH) Respect each other's opinions, and don't attack others personally, and we should be able to manage to have a discussion without the usual flames. Another very important note, your opinions will not be perceived as whining, so feel free to post. However, this is no carte blanche to say anything you want, this thread has no room for personal grudges, to coin a phrase: "it's strictly business". Also, please, re-read your post before you click the submit button.

    That said, let's get to the real deal.

    I've been in FH long enough to know what the forum is like when things are balanced, it's either dead-calm (unusual), or flame-full (usual). When it's the flaming battleground we can read threads about gold planes being superior, or inferior, or red planes being superior, or inferior. However, in the light of the recent balance shifting towards red planes being inferior, or gold planes being superior, I've started to wonder, how can we please all sides? A big question mark there, as there probably is no way on earth to do so. This means we've got to find a balance. A balance might have to interfere with historical/technical accuracy to be really, a balance. Or doesn't it? I hope it doesn't, but I'm afraid it does.

    The FH team has always aimed to make the game enjoyable for both sides. They've come from the original iEN Warbirds to an entirely different product. This happened through the addition of multiple aircraft, and the modification/addition of server-sided features and also the modifications of iEN aircraft. Server features are usually not questioned, if they are, they are easy to revert to the original, non-faulty values. The aircraft/gunnery models aren't as easy to tweak though. The FH team does their very best, and the flight models are in general top-notch (given the circumstances and the way they have to work), but, from time to time (or, as I've come to believe - occasionally) a glitch finds its way into the next FHL update. These glitches can happen to any plane, and are usually kind of hard to filter-out. Given this, should the developers - in your opinion - dedicate their time more to finalising the planes rather than releasing them? If the original iEN values do the thing (that is to say, if they are flameproof), but are inaccurate, should we go for accuracy or rather for playability? Do you think the developers should be 100% sure not to overshoot their capabilities and consecutively limit the number of updates per launcher update? Do you think that maybe the developers should update more, but then in smaller updates? Do you prefer a detailed product that perhaps doesn't really fit into the big picture over a product designed to fit into the big picture but less detailed?

    These are all a bunch of questions, the answers to them might help me understand how you guys think FH could be better. The questions are just there to help me/you with understanding/outing your opinion, if you have your own thought-out opinion the will do fine just the same.

    Beware however, this thread has nothing to do with the developers themselves, there is no guarantee that FH will indeed evolve the way you guys would like to. This is just a thread posted by me as being an FH pilot and a Beta Tester, there is no link to the developers here.

    <Z>

    BTW, Yes, I've got my own opinion as well, but I'm in no position to give it. I prefer to remain neutral, and play the devils advocate (as I've had to do quite alot lately - which then in turn probably made people believe I am not neutral). It's easier to judge/test a plane with a neutral mind than it is when thinking about how much better / worse it is than it should be.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
  2. spuint

    spuint Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    4,736
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    fueldiv 1.0 for a start
    pleasing both sides? impossible, no accuracy or playability will change a thing here.. one-siders will always whine
     
  3. ozemale6t9

    ozemale6t9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2002
    Messages:
    815
    Location:
    Queensland's Southern Capital
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    I'm all for planes being realistic, but then you have to ask the question....where does the data come from? To those of us not in the loop, it appears that only data from german sources will be accepted. Now, I would have thought that the best source would be the aircraft builder. After all, they are least likely to lie about the performance. Lets face it...each side is not going to release true data about an aircraft because

    • If they say the plane is too good, their pilots won't engage.

      and

    • They don't want their plane to look inferior.

    I mean, it's not like a country uses propaganda to motivate the troops or anything, is it?

    Certain sites are said to have incorrect/inaccurate data but again, how are we supposed to know this data is not right? Some of these so-called banned sites have data which seems to reflect many of the stories you read on the web, so how can it be said that it is incorrect?

    regards, Oz
     
  4. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    Fueldiv 1.0 seems like a start, but I thought the devs had already partially met the will of the pilots there?

    Well, some data is hard to recollect, and data written in books or on sites often contradicts. For the sites that have been "banned" there are probably plenty of sites which state the exact contrary. It's kind of difficult to know if an internet source is reliable/accurate or not. But that's developers call.

    Let's try to stay on subject before this gets hijacked :)

    <Z>
     
  5. Glas

    Glas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,928
    Location:
    Scotland
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    @ Oz: Just one or two things about your comments :)

    1. I would have thought the aircraft builder would be liable to exaggerate the performance of the aircraft, so the Govt procures their services. At the very least, if they say their plane can do X,Y,Z, but it can only do X and Y, they will have at least the opportunity to build a prototype.

    If you are referring to planes that have already rolled off the production lines, then usually the aircraft manufacturers figures for the plane would be based on the materials used in construction. So, if they have an engine running at 1000HP and the plane has a take-off weight of 500kg, then they could guesstimate the top speed of the plane. The actual figures, imo, would come however from the pilots who test the planes. Afaik, this would have been done on behalf of the Govt, not the airplane manufacturer.

    I could be wrong though, but this was always how I assumed aircraft were brought in to production.

    2. Re the sources: There are literally millions of sources available through the advent of the web. So as to have some conformity when people are submitting their thoughts about wrong FM, speeds, loadouts, etc, it is imperative the Devs restrict the sources from which they will accept the info. If not, anyone could design their own webpage in a matter of hours, fill it with their own dubious figures, then claim this to be true.

    The Devs, it would appear, have faith in the sources they like to be used, and will have their reasons for this (as well as their reasons for not accepting certain sources). Im pretty sure that if someone was able to provide a source, like the original figures used by the test pilot, then this would be accepted as fact.

    IMO the best sources for aircraft performance figures are those provided by the 'enemy' when they have captured the other side's planes. This was done by the RAF on both the 190 and 109. I would take those feelings and figures to be indicative of the aircraft, cos the advice in those reports was for the use of the pilots fighting against the 109 and 190 - it would have been no good to them if the RAF had downplayed the abilities of the Lw planes.

    Just my thoughts on some of the discussions about sources, etc that come up often :)
     
  6. tigrou

    tigrou Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,258
    Location:
    toulouse
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    i think respecting 100% of reel data for each aircraft will reduce game play.
    irl, the capabilities of any warbird was to take in the global war context, thing that doesn't exist in wbfh.
    i'm not very sad about current FM, exept short period of early spit vs 109 f2.
    the fh flier need is essentialy good dog fighters. no long range needed , no repair facilities,no night...
     
  7. ronin

    ronin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    1,503
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    All planes available equaly for all sides... that might solve the problem.
    Just put it that way for one tod... to test it, and then we will ask around
    if pilots like it.
    Also just by looking what planes were flown the most we gonna be able to say what side planes are really uber planes.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
  8. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    So, so far 50% balance, 50% realism.

    Maybe exec could add a balance vs realism poll? Lets hope he reads that :D

    @Ronin, well, IIRC there have been polls about such an RPS in the past, I'm not sure about the results but I think they were in favor of a system similar to the one we have now. I do think however it would be a good idea to try a ToD like that for say a day or 3 (before the pilots start to whine :p).

    @Glas, I appreciate your opinion, but let's please keep this thread on topic, threads like these are easily derailed :)

    <Z>
     
  9. Jacobe

    Jacobe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,340
    Location:
    Suomi,Finland
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    MY opinion without reading any text of this thread is :

    I fucking hope that you gents behave and talk here @ FH forum like we all guys live in a same block of flats .I DO! I Hope all good for FH's future and I wish that there's no dorks who in real-life reality feel so bad that they just push their sad egos up in 'killing' some1 on this freaking online ww2 flying sim.I've met many.wtg dorks ,u can never hide from love nor truth if there's any available.

    <S> gents
     
  10. muf-lo

    muf-lo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    547
    Location:
    Me? LAN
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    First I would say that I like WBFH because it the only flight simulator that doesn't put planes of the same country/side one against other. Seeing my 109 engaged by a 190 or my Spit with a Yak on its six makes my testicles having a more pronounced tendency to fall on the floor. Axis vs Allies is a distinctive prerogative of this flight sim, lets keep it, please...
    As for realism, I like full realism (of performances) first of all. But if this ruins the gameplay for a large part of the audience it's wise to throttle it down a bit. Maybe it can be tested to reduce numbers of the (supposed to be) uberplanes instead of their performances. If devs think a cannon have to deliver xxxx Joules or an engine xxxx horsepower and so on because it's historically correct (according with chosen sources), keep it that way and work on numbers of available planes in arena (possibly with random assignments and not on streak elitism).
    Since the monthly bill here is quite low, if devs feel the need, I wouldn't feel outraged if I find almost every day a new FH update with "the things that need tweaks" tweaked. But I'm on DSL, a lot of pilots are still on 56K here, that download can piss them off quite a lot. Smaller and frequent updates can be worked on, I hope.

    A new breath of fresh air can be the addition of tactical objectives for MA (Main Arena, I hate acronyms) while keeping the 1939-1945 global war. Something like the need to "close" the city (or port) by bombing it to capture one or two given fields near it, or deliver cargo flights to front fields to help them last longer (shortening reup times). This may serve to aggregate people in groups helping them last longer in air and defeating the bad sensation of getting your ass slammed by an uberplane. It can raise numbers of bombers in use too... Currently when there's the tactical need to sink the fleet bombers pilots show up gladly.
    I hope it can be barely understandable at least, since helpful I doubt... :)
    Thanks to the development community!
     
  11. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    @ Jac, I know what you're trying to say, but please, read the text and reply to the questions asked therein. :)

    I agree with you on what you're saying, but I want to keep this thread as on-topic as can be. So again, please read my original post and reply :)

    @ Muf-lo, so you'd like a bit of both (balance/accuracy), and an incentive (in the form of a feature) to improve teamplay as well?

    @ Everyone: Don't feel held aback because I like to keep this thread on track (heh, that rhymes :shuffle: ) I'm trying to keep this thread on topic as long as I can because all the previous threads have erupted into flames.



    <Z>
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2004
  12. Jacobe

    Jacobe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,340
    Location:
    Suomi,Finland
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    Why don't you -Glas- zembla you your nicks at MA?
     
  13. muf-lo

    muf-lo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2003
    Messages:
    547
    Location:
    Me? LAN
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    Yes, with a special attention on historycal accuracy of performances of planes and weapons, without going like Targetware that is a bit too hardcore to appeal large numbers (me included). If historycal accuracy drags away the fun factor for reds or golds, try keeping it reducing numbers of "correctly modeled but annoying" plane. If it doesn't works... pork it down, accuracy ends right where ends the patience of enemies :)
    Tactical targets can increase teamplay without forcing everyone to join a squadron but should be fun themself alone...
     
  14. Glas

    Glas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,928
    Location:
    Scotland
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    Sorry jacobe not sure what you mean.

    My only nick that I use in MA is -glas-. I had flown once or twice on red side (when I was with AFVS and always Gold) as -rglas or something like that, but been a while since I used it.
     
  15. biles

    biles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,898
    Location:
    49deg 11min 35.97sec N, 122deg 51min 57.65min W
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    The thing I wish for most of all is a predictable game. I fuckin hate it when a favorite ride changes because of an "update," the most hated opponents change becuase of the same update, CVs become capable of VSTOL, and some bright bird decides to make homing bullets, air mines or fuckin barage balloons. I don't think that adds much more than it takes away.
    Ya ever play a game of "Faery Chess?" Faery Chess is when some (usually a juvenile with his head thouroughly inserted deep into his ass) decides a chess game would be better if pawns were alloowed to move sideways or the king can move just like a queen and both players get an extra rook...

    I just sat down at a friend's house, I failed to get the "update" to install [something about, not a valid win32 application]. The one he had was something like, um, FH ver 1.5 or something (I can't remember).
    So I ended up playing solitaire for a little while. FUCK, the differences I noticed made me want to throw up my lunch.
    Game balance. Playability:
    Just try to get the fuckin' planes to behave similar to r/l, never mind "if only you understood how many things affect everything else, blah blah, YOU try it, blah blah.
    Many of us have designed flight models, I was doing it with a commodore 64 game, like 20 fuckin' years ago. I DO UNDERSTAND.
    DON'T FIX WHAT AIN'T BUSTED.
     
  16. bizerk

    bizerk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2001
    Messages:
    2,394
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    Well for starters i like the rolling plane set and i am all for realism. but i understand the need for balance as well. i think it works fine as far as the time of release goes for the AC for both sides. for Example, 190 comes out so allies (in real life and here) hurry the Spitfire IX to counter it, typhoons were used to chase down the hit and run raiders in Britian, and this is correct. I like the way the RPS starts and ends so do not change a thing there. Also having the planes go to large fields first and then med andsmall fields is just fine, it simulates how they were really handed out to squadrons, so again kudos for this.

    On accuracy, yes their are many conflicting sources, probably due to the fact they didn't specify the exact type/or varient of a particular model for which they are quoting sources, say a Spitfire IXe or Spitfire IX LF and just F. Or an aircraft with gun packs on external fuel tanks or bombs or even fuel load or type of octane a fuel uses. Myself and many others too thought the original 2.76 (ien) was a good over all. the yaks were fast little aircraft and nimble, the Zero behaved as a zero should. Also handling was better for all aircraft in general and responded well from imputs from the stick/mouse. i think these settings should be reintroduced, and all newly developed Aircraft should be fit around it. This i think would bring back the fun and many pilots that moved on. i know 1.42 the Zero performed well and control surfaces would stiffen when it wasvery fast, which is accurate the Zero was fast early on, but in real life was rather slow in a flat horizontal straight speed for just and example. the 190 was fast especially very low with the best roll, the P-47 had an awesome in roll as well. in the current launcher some transports and bombers can out manuever many front line fighters, i realise it sucks to take a troops transport but lets face it, they were rather vulnerable for being such big lumbering aircraft. The ottos could probably be toned down, andonce again lets face it, more are flying these aircraft because otto will most likely kill ya, even in proven attacking techniques and tactics. that can be fixed definately. the occational Pk from an otto is to be expected, but not the norm.

    on newer launchers, they should be used to wipe out glitches, or add a few new planes to fit into the current Aircraft, with out changing the original aircraft. like i said before, the new planes should be adjusted and then added, but the old planes should remain unchanged. So many times in the past have i had to relearn the same aircraft or in many cases give up on some completely. As usual we will always have some pilots better than others. a pilot should attempt to learn how a particular ace handles his aircraft and learn ways to combat him. never should some sort of hinderance or reduced trait be added to a good performing pilot or his particular ride to make other (lets say newer not as skilled) pilots feel they can adapt quicker with astonishing results. the learning curve can be a long and slow attempt for many, but patience and an attitude to get skilled will help a pilot to improve (again keeping FM constant without changewill help them especially).

    hmm on what sources to use, well i think Janes does a good job over all, but the sources should be made possibly in a sticky thread so all can see. Perhaps a multitude could be used, and each one could be pooled together to get a desired result. still i feel original IEN models should be used and new additions shouldfit inaround them.

    Ahh just a few ideas there. will add more later, but it is a good start and i do hope aike and rgreat will acknowledge :) nice thread Zembla, this is better to set a thread this way. good approach the way it should be.
     
  17. strafe

    strafe Guest

    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    I agree with bizerk opnion.
    To develop new planes was a good idea and keep the old ones too, but need a new RPS.
    IMHO realism is better than balance
    Short updates can help users than have dialup conections (despite use of programs like getright, DAP, ....)
    I guess something would be created to incentive strategic flights not only dogfigths. (WTG new rules to radar implemented)
    "E" loss must be revised, for exemple, to red and gold planes, last sunday I watch a Yak vulching f25 in Io-Io maneuvers without E loss, it could turn tight and keep the velocity, I guess his wings would be rip off or at least the plane would start a screw down or lost complete control that way. Samething had happens with gold planes too, (but I'd never experienced except in Ki84, in older FHL versions)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2004
  18. Turboman

    Turboman Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2003
    Messages:
    32
    Location:
    Canada EH!!
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    I agree with bizerk. The original IEN models were more flyable. I would say go back to them. In those models there were definate differences in planes. IE: Zeke was awesome turner, 109 could climb fast but lost E after short time.You could not turn inside a zeke with a spit but....... you could outmanouvre it. Biggest problem here is we have nothing to compare to but original flight models from IEN. We all read about this plane and that plane doing things, but could they really do it? Devs have done a wonderful job here don,t get me wrong. I suspect they are up against a major hurdle here though. Looks to me like 1 small change in a planes FM is amplified as the plane gets lighter.I suspect way more than it should be too. Seems to be a ripple effect change amplifys as it goes. Plane xxxx has E loss changed to what appears normal but lose 3/4 fuel and it is 15% better when it should be only 5% better. Total guess here but from what i have seen in changes seems true to me. So yes i would go back to original IEN FM and tweak added planes to fly as desired to reflect what they were spose to fly like. Otto needs to be toned down too. Field ack seems to have erratic patterns as someone already stated.Can ack be made to pause as you shoot at it , like a real gunner would do? Duck an hide as rounds come in not just keep firing.
     
  19. Helrza

    Helrza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2003
    Messages:
    560
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    ive noticed it does that. try it on a 40mm, it stops firin for a few seconds.
     
  20. beryl

    beryl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,788
    Location:
    19*08'E 51*30'N
    Re: So, what мs your opinion?

    FMs are ok, DMs are sometimes strange. But first important thing is secure FH from cheating. And the second - just look at brasilian FH (tabarahaja ;) ). Cool ideas.

    and... Zembla - are you representing devs, or just dreaming?