posted 01-06- 06:10 PM            

I recieved an email today from one of our plane makers expressing concern over a couple of threads recently posted about planes and what is wrong with them and if they should be allowed in our plane packs. This designer feels frustrated and may not build anymore planes. Is this what we want?

Maybe when someone puts out a plane you do not like or does not meet your specifications you should think before you jump. Lets try to encourage rather than discourage.

posted 01-06- 08:50 PM            

WM

posted 01-06- 09:26 PM               

To the builder to whom Hawk refers to... I truely am sorry that what has ben said made you feel unwanted and unappriciated. Please continue to put fourth your efforts and creations to this sim.

posted 01-07- 11:30 AM            

Werner

posted 01-07- 03:34 PM               

I don't think the discussion on the forum was about whether his plane was good or bad. The question was whether it should be in the planepack. I personally think seperating planes by type and releasing a suite of smaller planepacks would allow us more freedom, and find a place for all types. I just don't think fictional planes should be part of a standard, unless they are clearly seen as such.

I hope nothing I have said has offended anybody, and apologise if I did, but I think the comments made are more a reflection on preserving a degree of historical reality and not intended to rubbish anyones work.

posted 01-07- 04:26 PM               

Once upon a time, the planepacks were the same 6 or 7 planes, refined over and over again, by pretty much the same group of guys, who had it down to a science. The planepack served 2 purposes: making sure the planes were compatible for online play, and making sure they were pretty close to their real performance (with "macro" flight model improvements built into all the planes simultaneously).

Well, those days are gone, gang. There's 50 planes, and 5 guys who know how to do the flight modeling "meticulously." That means that the newer planes are going to have longer periods of "maturing" before they are "right." I think the most you can expect from a planepack NOW is to achieve online compatibility so you don't get mismatches. Making sure the planes compare "realistically" is going to be up to the mission makers for a while. You want to have a "good" Pacific mission? Don't put Zeros up against F4U-4s. If you do, don't blame ME

Mudeye has a good idea back up there. Rate each plane (HOW we do that, I'm not sure) on two scales: "overall" capability, and "realistic performance." So, maybe the Corsair gets an 8 in capability, but only a 6 for realism. Then the mission builder can at least build "competitive" missions, and other players who join a mission know that they're basically flying a "fantasy" matchup.

As for "constructive criticism," don't be afraid to point out a mistake, but at least have the courtesy to include a source for your contention. If I design the F4U-4 to go 462 mph, and you think it only goes 438, I'm not going to put any work into responding to a criticism that says "the F4U-4 is too uber and needs work." Give me some "real" data that shows me where the problem is and what the actual performance is supposed to be.

But also realize that the designer probably ALSO has some data. Does the P-47 roll too slowly? Not according to the real data that was used in its design.

For me, probably the biggest irritant is when someone comes in with a single data source or point, limited knowledge of real life flying, and preconceived notions of how "hard" or "easy" something is supposed to be, and then proceeds to pick apart somebody's model that was provided, for FREE, after HUNDREDS of hours of "volunteer labor of love." If all you've done is play EAW or CFS, I wouldn't generalize that experience into vast knowledge of aerodynamics or aircraft design and then expect someone who's put a lot of study time into learning his aircraft subject to change a bunch of stuff because it doesn't "feel right" to someone who plays with the realistic flight model turned off

Another thing we can do is declare certain planes as "production versions," and put them into their own planepack, and then LEAVE that planepack alone! Then classify other models as "prototype models" and make those the planes that get included in "update packs." Then lump "everything else" into a "background pack" that would include all the game files, ground objects, weapons, squadrons, etc etc). Then ONLY put out a new "pack" when enough of the planes or objects in that pack have been updated to justify a new pack. That would help folks to understand which planes are considered to be "refined" and which are still being tinkered with.

posted 01-07- 06:03 PM            

Werner

------------------
Visit Abbeville Field Today!