I would like to thank pretty much all involved at FH for a fine product. A big <S> because you folks could pretty much screw-up a wet dream! Launcher after launcher you try to get it right. If it was screwedup in the first place, the first or possible even the second launcher should have fixed it. what a joke this has become. But your efforts are appreciated, but i still don't see what it is your trying to achieve other than to see just how much people will take. And man I must be a glutton for punishment. Its a shame really what has been done to a once great combat flight sim. time for another long break.
Can you please not start any 'Oh, look at me leaving FH with a tear in my eye' threads anymore?! This is fucking annoying.
Well Biz, you know I hate to see you go, but what's with the drama? The devs do their best indeed, and unless you're 100% up to date on programming flight-models etc in WB please refrain from commenting they manage to screw up. I see less whining these days, either that means people stopped caring, or that means things are getting better again... <Z>
You don't play late at night, right? Xela and his dickhead troops are annoying. A constant whine. But i think they can be put in the bag of whinners-by-nature instead people who really knows what the game is about
Gimme RL data of 109's and Spitfire's ROLLRATES ,CLIMBSPEEDS and MAX DIVESPEEDS ASAP!!!!! (I know real rollrates are reduced in WB cause of preventing warps in fast rolls)
The first part of your quote is correct, on the second part, things definately are not getting better. Do you know how many times when i fly in the arena people ask why even bother to post info to improve things? Constantly! Why do I then? Because it is an attempt to set things right, get the final improvements. And I am not alone by far in this attempt. Pilots on both sides post here to get things put right. The response we get is either nothing at all, or give us numbers. I don't even think you guys have the numbers, you say you do but why then every Launcher are things very VERY different? This is just a tinkering hobby for Aike, rgreat, bw and all the rest involved. And your damned right many have given up. They are damn tired of their voice falling on deaf ears and flying aircraft which were just fine but are now so frigged up. The only plane that is remotely usable is the Spits, I don't fly the P-39's but many say they are awesome. If this is true fuck it up like you did the other good aircraft, but make the hellcats/wildcats elevator response back to where it belong would be a good start. Fix the zeros to where they belong instead of implementing .attach bullshit commands and super ottos. This work which is done is GREATLY APPRECIATED but you guys don't know your head from a hole in the wall I swear most times. FH is like having a wound that keeps on bleeding, but instead of stopping the bleeding and healing the wound, you folks ask for more blood. It is just plain frustrating to talk to you guys in a reasonable manner and get answered by testers and moderators instead of getting some answers by the ones who matter. Damn it make me a tester i'll fix this. First off i'll fix the elevator problem, then the damage model, and then put flight characteristics in order. let me know what i have to do and how to do it. Because i'm tired of the right planes being porked and many soso aircraft and bombers and transport planes performing better in flight then many awesome fighters! @cbfs, I never said i'm leaving, just a break! Now shut up and go back to watching power rangers but be annoyed cause that doesn't bother me in the least. i just want this thing to be put right.
Jacobe, you are terribly wrong The only planes that have rollrates reduced are 190 series, I-16 and, may be, I-153. All others, especially allied planes, have their rollrates 1.3 - 1.8 times improved against real data. The improvement record is behind Typhoons and Zekes (1.8 times) Just for pure information: real 190 had 1.7 times better roll rate than the nearest anglo-american adversary. Poor British had even to cut Spitfire IX wingtips (LF) trying to get on par with 190, but that helped them not too much -- they outperformed 190 roll rate at... landing speeds If my memory doesn't cheat on me, you need to have a glance at NACA Report NO 868 (Lateral Control). The most valuable page is 166 -- http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1947/naca-report-868/index.cgi?page42.gif
Can you please not start any 'Oh, look at me leaving taking a break from FH with a tear in my eye' threads anymore?! And I fucking hate Power Rangers.
Hey vadim, how come zekes' roll is that bad? I thought that it should be good turner/roller, but obviously it's agile only when rolling to the take-off.... airfax
Zekes had huge ailerons and poor pilot's force application ratio. Someone even called them to look like gate doors. A pilot had to be a real BB champion to achieve high aileron deflection angles at high speeds.
Thnx Dope for the link! But here the issue is that ALL golds flying zekes have enourmous muscles.That's no prob. BUT .... WHY THE F**K THAT DIAGRAM DON'T MATCH WB PLANES PERFORMANCE???????? grhm ... just testing if Aike and the rest unknow admins need glasses ,since I don't have a slightest Idea if they might be deaf. cause I can't shout via net :-/ (yet)
you tested it? i know that busido stands position that golds must be improved and that most of reds are ubermodelled. it is good, since amongst consultants he is at another pole vs vzhik and chernov (that think that reds must be improved because undermodelled). we need busido for balancing opinions of consultants. but, jacobe, will you take this polar position without checking? that would be funny. damn, i hate you all already WHAT THE FUCK YOU THINK FE DEVELOPERS MUST DO WHEN ALL OF YOU ARE DEMANDING FIXES AND ALL OF YOU HATE CHANGES?! AND WHY THE FUCK BUSIDO GONE PROPAGANDING INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING WITH -BW- THAT IS QUITE WILLING TO COOPERATE?! ah, think whatever you want, and shout whatever you want.
You can afford yourself to think like that, people who are more involved don't think like that. Ok, let me try to compare FM modeling and all things involved with it with something you experience in daily life. When driving a car, you have a steering wheel. This allows you to steer to whatever direction you wish. If you wouldn't have a steering wheel, imagine how you'd drive your car? You might know the exact direction you want to go, but let's assume you've got controls that are tied together. This means, for example, if you pull a cable connected to your front right wheel, your rear left wheel will slow down. (not that this necessarily would occure, but, just assuming) As I understand from the things I run across flightmodel designing is very similar. The developers don't have a steering wheel, and the only way they can change the direction is by tweaking numbers, but when tweaking a certain number another number will get a new value as well. Think of it a bit as if you're trying to solve a puzzle, but you've got no idea how you're going to achieve your final results. You try and you try, but you don't have a map, so you can't be 100% sure you're doing the right thing. After a while you get the hang of it and your trials approximate the desired results nicely. However, not close enough, they may be only a quarter of an inch off, but that's a crucial quarter of an inch. So you tweak some more, but whaddyaknow, the other factors change as well. Etc, I think you understand what I'm trying to say. It's very very very very very very very very easy to comment on it as being an outsider to the development process, but it's an entirely different game when viewed from the inside. The developers are doing their utmost best to improve the game. Theyre people like you and me who only got time to play or improve the game in their free time. Most people I know that left have left because real life grew more important, it's the same here, but they pass on the torch to new people. You should try to place yourself in their position. Why do you think your voice is falling on deaf ears? We read the numbers, and see they're no better/no more reliable/ the same as our numbers. We evaluate those numbers, we don't detest advice or comments from the community. But we do detest whines and flames based on no facts or arguments at all. Most of the threads don't bring on new or useable data if they bring on any data at all. Most of the things you bring to our attention we already know of or are - sorry to say - your point of view. Neighbor's grass is always greener is absolutely true up until a certain extent. Well, we're close enough to the development process to know which is which. In fact many developers have already responded to claims or data posted here. Most of the times what they say is the exact same thing we say. They don't have the time to read these forums nor do they feel like correcting every little whine or itch someone has about a plane. Sometimes some good information is lost that way, but usually if there's good information at least the beta-test forum gets a link to it. How would you feel if your hard work is torn to the ground time and time again? If you're trying to please an unpleasable crowd? Really, rgreat, bw, aike, all have replied to threads on the topic we're discussing, always have they said the same things as us, maybe not litterally, but in general the same. You're misunderstand the role of beta-tester. Also, there's no fixing we do, that's the developers, but then again, I doubt you even have the slightest clue on what you're talking about when saying such a thing. <Z>
@Mr.Z Wtg man! This is the tone of 'voice' I like to read.No flame just facts.I guess if the modeling would be easier ; and not like jumping into some fractalmathematic soup to stirr in , the parameters would be correct here.But still, in my experience the most part of the ww2 planes FANS dig axis planes and devs are russian.It's ok to me.But I can only wish there could be a good balance found somehow. (like we all(?) ) I've never seen any of the parameters the planes FM lie on.I have no Idea how they work. (yet) If they would be public it would maybe change the matter of discusting over FM. @Mr.exec ,how can you hate me? Hate my lack of knowlidge instead ok?And 'we' don't hate the changes ,just the biased f**kups ,intended or not. How about buying a ticket to USA ,drink the Ien staff under the table and politely ask the source code of WB2.77R3 since ''You @ Ien don't even profit of it anymore anywhere in net and you haven't developed this old game for years.'' I'm volunteer ,I can drink you all under the table for starters. @broz ,hola toreadooore ,now I love exec ,he hates me and you love me sometimes...how do you feel towards exec? exec? --> <-- broz? <-- me
@ jacobe: Agreed, I think the data used to model the FMs should be made available, since anyone who wishes to propose any changes must quote their source. It would create an 'open book' of the kind of data that is used, and what type is considered reliable by the devs. And before I forget, LOL with the smilies
