posted 06-18- 12:12 AM            

I welcome others to voice their opinion here concerning this topic. I want to get some feedback before I go into the particulars

posted 06-18- 02:18 PM            

And you want to talk about historically correct and reduction of file sizes then get rid of all the planes that didn't see combat.

Make this game simpler for new comers or it will die. We now have over 1100 regestrants and I will bet that 75% are no longer here.

This has gotten out of hand and I'm really getting tired of it. This is not a rant, more of an opinion and I am saying that for me it's not frustration, I can do all that I need to make this work. What I'm saying is, probably echoing voices, but is it worth it. I'm beginning to think not.

If you guys just want to sit around and play with this thing offline, fine. Online has become a thing of the past and as testimonial read about all the newcomers having trouble with this game. Well I'm telling you now it's not just the newcomers now, and it isn't just me.

Maybe you handful of survivers can get gratification from talking to yourselves about your great accomplishments for the next three years but I'll tell you this I won't be here much longer if things don't get ironed out, piss on IL2...

This sim needs a project manager, that isn't the moderators job but we all take it upon ourselves to manage this project. Many of you know first hand that any given project can only have ONE project manager.

Pull your heads out of your collective asses and read. We have lost many great guys and we will loose many more and then you will be just a handful. I'm not upset and I'm not frustrated, but when you have project that is this close and you can see that light at the end of the tunnel but you just can't seem to quite reach it because there is no one driving the train.

Lets get it together or guess what, you loose!

Psi

"Where the hell all the simplicity of life has gone?!"

My point exactly Poniat

posted 06-18- 02:25 PM               

Hmm, on several points I find myself in agreement with Psi. Not all, but many. Lets keep the flames to a minimum and try to address the issue, it sure seems to be coming up more often these days.

Werner

posted 06-18- 03:58 PM               

It would however be an advantage to be able to make things simpler, and maybe less frequant releases of the pack would help, giving more time for testing by a select team, which is ofcourse never easy to setup, lets be honest, spin has tried his best, but this just isn't a simple matter, where we on the DIME team are working on older base aircraft I would ask most to be patient, we need the time to get this right and it simply can't be rushed, other aircraft though may require a similar team to look at them, but again, this all takes time, and don't forget, PP6 was kinda of rushed because of people crying out for a new plane pack because of a number of new aircraft releases, this doesn't work and now you're seeing the result.

It's alot of work guys, and we're a small team, there's no easy answer. Don't forget, again using my Mig as an example, for me it's very tame on my system, but for Jeeves it's how it should be, very twitchy, this shows that for someone working on a particular aircraft it could seem perfect, but that doesn't mean it is for everyone, I realy think more time has to be taken before doing a new plane pack, and more testing needs to be done before FM changes to aircraft are adopted into the plane packs.

posted 06-18- 04:22 PM               

Fast, who has been one of the more active online flyers had been telling me something was wrong with 6.1, but I haven't tested enough to say.
When Grem and I switched back to 6.0 with the patch, all was back to normal.
I also agree with Psi and what Himdog said in another thread about having too many versions of the same plane. Could we have a limit to two of each type in the plane packs? We only need like a 109e and g, 51b and d, and get rid of the planes that saw little or no action on ww2--like the ta152, he100, and f4u4b?
We could always enjoy the planes as separate downloads and keep the online standard more streamlined for new flyers. Maybe take a vote on which two variants of the same planes everyone likes the most? Or possibly have two plane packs--one for people that want everything and another for the online crowd?
With the new patches, online play is amazing--you don't see anymore planes taking insane amounts of damage to only end up having to land. The online community could really grow with this. Thanks for everyone's hard work on the patch and plane packs.

posted 06-18- 04:33 PM               

Keep spin and the plane pack team as the "standard keepers", but release each plane individually. That way people can totally customize their games by downloading "standardized" planes (ie the ones that are in the PPs now) from one source. Update planes at intervals, so lets say someone makes a new FM for the 190 for instance, any version since spin's last update would be a beta version, no questions asked. This sort of tweaking will happen sporadically to a bunch of planes, and even if its a good tweak, leave it as a beta until the time interval (say a month) and then it gets listed, along with all other planes (whether they were updated or not) as 6.x. At such time either spin or one of the standard keepers posts a list of what planes have been updated.

It will take restraint on the part of frequent online users (lol) to avoid messing up their "standard" installs with betas. IMHO if you're hardcore enough to be messing with betas, you're hardcore enough to take the time for a second install. The advantage would be you wouldn't get people downloading a massive pack of which a fraction holds their interest, the only catches are a)online supporters not messing up their installs as described above and b) you need a small team of standard keepers to say "ok everyone, all planes are now called 6.whatever standard, and the following have been updated from 6.whatever-minus-one so download them if you like. If you go to play a game online and they've got a plane you don't have, 2Mb is a heck of a lot easier a download than whatever it now takes for a plane pack you don't have.

Ok boys, rip me to shreds.

Werner

posted 06-18- 04:45 PM               

Also I think its kinda fun to be able to loop a Mustang inside 200feet!

posted 06-18- 04:45 PM            

But the point is, is what Nat said about the flood of all the stuff that is needed to play this sim, and that goes hand in hand with the fact that 6.1 is not the best performer of the two, PP6.1 and PP6.0

I'm saying what you said last night lets stop here for a moment and say what is what. All this confusion is not good for this sim as far as getting people intrested in it.

You saw it last night with that new guy that all he wanted to do is get up and try it out and have some fum, but he couldn't because of some stupid file problem that he was having, not us, no we know what were doing, it was his problem.

This is the mentality that we need to eliminate here and give these guys a hand or better yet simplify the sim so that it is "user friendly" D

o ya need a Project Manager? if so I would be glad to do this, online standard is;

Patch 1.5.2.9

PP 6.0

Nations V2

All else is an option, there ya go it is now managed and it's that simple...

posted 06-18- 04:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psi:
Well here goes as to the particulars about PP6.1. The 109 can now out turn the Spit, the Mustang barely get's off the ground, like the centerline is off.

And you want to talk about historically correct and reduction of file sizes then get rid of all the planes that didn't see combat.

[This message has been edited by Psi (edited 06-18-2001).]

---

Hmm- must not have paid attention to an earlier post Psi. I have the max instantaneous and sustainable turning rates for the Spit I and 109E, and the SpitIX and the 109G. Guess what- the 109's instantaneous turn rate is faster than the Spits for BOTH comparisms. The sutained rate is faster for the Spit, but from some reading I've done, that's at the ideal speed for each aircraft (which is slower for the 109). According to a test done in WWII with a captured 109, at slower speeds the G could handily out turn any american fighter and had a marginal edge over the Spifire.

Before you yell about historically accurate FM's do some more reading. The Mustang is a known problem and is being fixed. The FM for the B I've worked on will be adapted to the D and a few mods made for the handling and HP differences.

As for planes that didn't see combat being included, that was why the discussion has come up before about splitting the plane pack. This was not considered very popular.

If you want simplicity go back to the 10 original planes. You can't have the number of aircraft we do and keep things simple.

You also have something backwards- it's the number of flyable aircraft we have now that's attracting people, along with the new patch features.

If you really want to kill newcomers in SDOE, then we can follow your suggestion.

I know this is a fact from PR posts I've put on other message boards showing the things that are UNIQUIE to SDOE. I ca get 3 times the response showing a Go229, the new corsair with the DM, and a couple of thw WWI planes than I get showing the same old planes everyone else has.

As for a project manager, ask questions and it will keep you from inserting your foot in your mouth.

DIME project- updating the original 10 aircraft has ONE project manager

The Plane Packs have ONE person handling them

The Ground Pack has ONE person in charge of it.

This is a COMMUNITY- not a corporation. Why don't you volunteer to manage a project since that doesn't necessarily mean you need to know the technical details of each step.

Many of us ARE working together, but since you aren't INVOLVED in any of these projects- you wouldn't know.

The patch is confusing issues, yes, but it has drawn more users than the 1.5 version which has WAY to many bugs online.

Online is not a thing of the past. Unfortunately everybody wants everything yesterday- that's the real problem.

To be honest, it's inflammatory posts like this one and CRTF's that drive users away- think about that for a while. If you were new and saw your second post- how would it make you feel, not really knowing much about the game yet.

Keep one thing straight, Poniat was NOT talking about the game but the OS and hardware problems associated with Windows. Some of the problems being experienced now are because of Nvidia and Microsoft issues, not SDOE issues.

The issues mentioned above are because the users screamed they wanted the new stuff (need any quotes- I can easily pull them up). Now many of the same people are screaming because- YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED.

Make up your mind.

Psi- we work at day jobs and then work on the SDOE stuff. If you want a project manager, then I nominate you.

I know Jerry will be busy in a little bit as he's offeredt to be a test pilot for me and I'm going to be shuttling some FM's his way over the next couple of weeks.

Let's get together or lose is a good quote, unfortunately the rest of your post does exactly the opposite.

"Maybe you handful of survivers can get gratification from talking to yourselves "

"Pull your heads out of your collective asses and read"

"We have lost many great guys"- funny having been in contact with some of them, it was statements like the ones above that made them leave- consider that.

"I'm not upset and I'm not frustrated" Really- never could tell from the above quotes.

'We now have over 1100 regestrants and I will bet that 75% are no longer here" True, but most of them wer gone BEFORE the patch and PP6.0 and 6.1- or have you been ignoring the "I'm back" posts from the people returning BECAUSE of them?

Nuff said- This IS being worked on but Psi- your post makes it sound like everyone's sitting around twiddling their thumbs. Not true, but I wonder how many newcomers you've just scared off.

------------------
"Da Jug"

FM question: Which end does the propeller thingy go on?
Fighter Squadron Central
ICQ: 121447410

posted 06-18- 04:57 PM            

Dates of completion for that particular PP and if you miss the loop you get a second chance at the next PP, no exceptions.

I have the utmost respect for all that have taken this sim to this level and I mean no disrespect with this thread, I just want it to work for all of us!

I don't believe that I'm alone with this wish, look at what DJH is doing, but why does he have or feel the need to micro-manage this on his own.

If I were to elect a Project Manager for the online standard it would be him, but he would have to be online more.

This is what I talked about in another thread WM about having a "Start/Stop" date, that way we have SOME order here, great idea...

P

posted 06-18- 05:01 PM            

Now Psi don't turn this into a flame (I won't mommy)

posted 06-18- 05:17 PM               

I left out the fact that you do have a couple of points that are worth considering. But someone needs to volunteer to help get them resolved.

I have something I'd like to send you to try out (not a letter bomb or flame )

Can you e-mail me so I can get it to you?

posted 06-18- 05:24 PM               

Regarding the subject at hand though, I fully expected to be flamed for blaspheming our beloved Pack system. IMHO its outlived its usefulness. What we need is a standards system, as described in brief above. If enough people like the idea I'll take the time to write a formal proposal and procedure document, but I'm not investing that kind of time on a whim. Yes deadlines are great, but the problem is still the pack itself, in its current form. IMHO its got to go.

Does this make me a... radical?

Werner

posted 06-18- 05:30 PM               

None of this is a slam on spin, I think he's done yeoman's service for this community with his work so far, and is in a better position than a lot of us to propose alternatives/solutions to the problem at hand.

Werner

posted 06-18- 05:55 PM            

SO as for pushing new people away! you ve greatly helped in doing that. For the fact that new guys will always join sdoe 1.5 lobbies first and find less guys to help them!

Plane pack 6.1 is proving it's worth IN the 1.5 lobbies.

It had 4 beta releases ,, more than any don't forget that...

When you jump into the 1.5.1 lobbies and say i'm not using 1.5 again online,, then you are not really helping the transition to 1.5.1 you just say I'm ok I'm here in this lobby! thats nice for you,,

I suggest you use pp6.1 And report any planes that you find with problems,, that you see and then pp6.2 planes will be closer to using the either sdoe patch!

Planes also are great in pp 6.1 ,, We are using 6.1 where we can use it to progress to 6.2 !

If you are using the beta sdoe patch x.x.x.9 you will find that the hurricane is affected so badlly it's like flying a planes without a rudder..
IN sdoe patch 1.5 it behaves normal!

If you use the new komet in 1.5 you don't see the Hidden Wheels that support the skid!
but In the x.x.x.9 you see wheels and a skid!

Get Planepack 6.1 and get finding these bugs with the x.x.x.9

cause if you are flying 6.0 only you are not helping atall!

posted 06-18- 06:03 PM               

Splitting them by having a common plane pack and the rest by theater would work, but a game would have to have the theater posted in the title. Or different theaters would need to use different servers.

Werner's suggestion would also work, but any one hosting would have to let people know if a special plane was required.

Limiting an online std to 2 fighters and bombers per nation would also work- but which ones?

Every solution raises as many questions, and this is why we do need somoeone to, if nothing else, spearhead finding the most workable solution to the problem.

Once a decision is arrived at, the people working on the projects could easily adapt their work to fit the guidelines.

As for FM's. There are discrepencies that need to be solved. That is the reason for the dime project. The idea is to take 10 planes at a time, and get them all to the same standard (starting with the original 10). So you will see some lepafrogging/reshuffling in performance as this happens- sorry, no way to avoid it.

This will take some time, but we are willing, especially knowing another Open Plane sim is being developed that these planes could eventually be moved to.

posted 06-18- 06:40 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psi:

This sim needs a project manager, that isn't the moderators job but we all take it upon ourselves to manage this project. Many of you know first hand that any given project can only have ONE project manager.

---

I wonder if you realize the scope of what you are really asking? This would be roughtly equivilent to a normal full time managerial job. In addtion to your regular job (forget doing any modeling or FM'ing of your own).
Oh yea. Without pay.

Yes, there are things that need to be done to make things better. Being full of doom and gloom isn't one of them.

The only other point I will touch on is deadlines. This is not only a bad idea, it is a phenominally bad idea. To the best of my knowlege no PP has never been held up waiting for a plane. Setting and enforcing deadlines only leads to a poor quality product and unhappy users. (Look at SDOE as it was released. Need I say more?)

posted 06-18- 11:15 PM            

All of you seem to be able to justify your own good intentions and say if ya don't like it, get out.
The person that does happen to have some issues with anything in here can get in deep trouble, I knew this was coming.

One thing I don't really have to concern myself with is having to defend my self to you guys online, cause you don't go online, so how would you know what's right and what's wrong.

I simply want everybody to be able to use this sim to it's full potental. And if need be I will gather my own following fly it my way and many will be able to join in the fun.

I'm not posting to say that this will never be fixed, I'm saying what I said about two, three weeks ago, what is a "flyable" online standard and who's flying what. Maybe I'll rob a little from PR and say simply that for me it's patch .9 PP 6.0 NV2 This is not what I call having fun, I know, I know, just go away Psi we don't want your opinion nor your doom and gloom, but hell I'm entitled to an opinion too.

Jug, Speaking of reading I am on the DIME team, and I don't know who you been talking to but most left this sim because the FM's and DM's were off.

Snickers, I already managed this project, patch .9 PP 6.0 and NV2, this is flyable and it is a project complete.

Pye, If I'm not flying PP6.1 I'm not helping, If it worked I would fly it then I would give you my views, oh I already did...

posted 06-19- 12:04 AM               

***Known Issues

Several of the planepack 6.0 and 6.1 beta planes experience desktops when used in the current patch beta (version 1.5.2.4). The following problems have been documented:

So far the following planes CTD

He162, Go229, p51d, b17g (pp6.1 only). The following comments were provided by Bryan Russell using the debugger:

P51 : The debugger says that horzStabL need to have the onDmg properties changed to be in ascending order. Funny it loads OK in the debugger now (after I changed this in the sm), but still has a problem in release. Needs further work.

He162 (?) : Parachute(Heinkel162): Object with mass needs inertia ( a few of these ). Tire with no DOF, but with a dForce

Go229 : Gotta have a parent and it's gotta be a vehicle (this looks like it is reported by a DOF) Go229: misaligned phyCylYInertia Parachute(Go229): Object with mass needs inertia

Changes for beta 4:

A6M5 and A6M2 - corrected texture references for the ammo boxes in the cockpit. These are now displaying correctly.

FW190a8 - Moving engine fan and texture added. (courtesy Yardstick and Razer).

Me163 - With Aladar moving on, the Me163 received a few refinements from ArgonV and Yardstick. It is now included in the pack.

P51d - Raider has fixed a desktop problem experienced in the current beta version of the patch.

Condor has updated a few bugs encountered with the engine damage models for the following planes: Beau21, BeauX, BeauVI, BeauI, f4f4, me262, mosq, p38j.

Maury Markovitz has updated the loadouts for most of the German planes. Have a look at the hangar descriptions, he has added a significant amount of new and interesting information. At this point these are only in English. If someone is inclined to create translations for any languages please send them to me. I'll be happy to add them.

Changes for beta 3:

Lanc - removed the beta2 version for a bunch of reasons - replaced with an earlier version with a few updates. FM has been adjusted to closer to proper values - mainly weight changes. changed the weight of the plane from 12700 to 28000 lbs plus corrected one engine to match the others 750 to 1450 lbs. Also fixed the oil pressure gauges which were pegging due to a range problem in the coding.

P38F - with moving canopy added.

Gunsights were updated by Yardstick for the 109s, He162, and F4F4.

Harman's ju88a4 dm version 6.2 is included

Plane Pack V6.1 (Beta -2) Release Notes

Several bugs have been repaired for the second beta. They include the following,

Loadouts: Fixes for the Seafire, Hurricane, He100d

Aircraft: Engine DM added to the Go229, He162, Mistel 1 and Mistel 3

New Aircraft: SeaMosquito

Updated Pzl 11c with Condor's engine dm

Updated f4f4 gunsight - thanks Yardstick

Most recent P38F

probably other stuff but I've lost track.

The spit ix hasn't been fixed yet. Still getting the desktop when it explodes. I experienced a problem with engine and aircraft sounds stopping after 2 or 3 regens in multiplayer mode. Please report similar occurances. Cause is not known.

Plane Pack V6.1 (Beta -1) Release Notes

Aircraft updates:

All fighter aircraft are now equipped with Condor's engine dm

Version 6.1 of Harman_5's Ju88a4 is included - please note your existing textures will not work well with the damage skin for this. 2 alternate textures are included in the readme folder. See Harman's readme for the ju88a4 for greater details.

Fw190a3: Mposis and Yardstick have updated the 190a3 to the 190a4's pp6.0 fm. They have also added a texture for a rotating engine fan.

B17G - Tailgunner is working to give us some interesting changes here. Engine dm modifications to this and the lanc should add interest

Lanc - weight increased back to 29000 (pp5.3 weight) from 12700 (not sure why it went down for PP6.0). I guess the lanc won't be outrunning any more 190s. Engine dm modifications included. Also new bombadier instrumentation included to enable Hudless missions. The horizon is working but not right - anyone wanting to fix it have a look and send me a fix. I'd also like an fpm and velocity indicator in there if your adventurous.

Significant updates to the Seafire courtesy Mace.

Go229 fm updates.

Added the SeaHurr - catapult launch from merchant ship - Thanks Mace.

New loadouts for the Hurricane - now Hurricane Mk1 / II . This thing now packs a real punch. (Mace again).

Razer's P38F - he also submitted updates for the a6m2 and a6m5 but a desktopping bug report suggests that I keep the Condor's dm versions for now.

Zurawski's PZL11c is included.

Due to popular demand the Ju188 (RoyohBoy) is also in.

Stuff I'd like to add but I'm not sure about status on include the BF110c, Do17, Corsair updates and 109 updates. Please send me a status update on these projects. There are many others I can think of but I just want to get this into testing.

Vehicles:

Teruzuki: sm and ppf files for this vehicle have been added. Somehow they were left out of the pp6.0 release.

Mk6 landing craft: version updated to Nat's improved version with proper scale and is now destructable.

CAM - Merchant Ship added to support the SeaHurricane.

Reduce strength flak and ship guns have been included.

Loadouts:

Huge changes in the loadouts, please test extensively for the beta. The loadouts now contain two options for online and offline play. Online loadouts "NETGuns" for example have warhead values of 0.01 for lower calibre bullets. This is consistent with the "Spoonman" loadout package.

For creating online play with planes equipped with these guns use the "NET" version of the loadout as found in the mission editor. When saving missions make a note the "NET" loadouts are used eg. mission name: "NET Bob Attack"

For the purists and for offline play these loadouts are completely compatible with all existing missions and do not effect current missions. Only missions created for the NET loadouts will have the increased warhead. No switching is needed.

Finally for many addon planes French, Italian and German descriptions were repeating the 190s original description. When this has occured I've translated the creators English text using AltaVista (this is a cheater's translation and not exactly accurate - but it's better than nothing). If you are using these and would like to see more accurate translations, please send them to me. I'll ensure they get in the next pack.
***

Starting from PP6.0 changes were made in order from the bottom up.

Spin, if you're reading this, could you please post and put this FM issue to rest? That way we can get on with dealing with pack size and distribution.

Man-oh-man do Mondays suck sometimes.

Werner out.

posted 06-19- 01:02 AM               

We need more defined problems that people are having with aircraft, and then we need the time to fix them rather then expecting them sorted out straight away, c'mon guys, we all know the general problems, and there are maney, and some big ones, but we're trying to sort them out, we are anow, and have been for a long time, a TEAM, and differing opinions are always a good thing, they prompt change and enhancment.

I think for the present time that we should realy have a Plane Pack forum added (Hawk?) OK, how would this help? Easy, everyones problems with any PP aircraft can be posted there, they wont get mixed up and possibly lost when put into other forums, meaning when they come to be fixed it's much easier to find info on the problems that have been experienced by people, and even to use them to test updates to see if this has fixed their bug, we all know that no 2 systems are the same, and planes fly differently on each, testing is the key, that said, how maney times have I posted a beta and asked for feedback and got less the 10% feedback from the people that said they would test, happens all the time, so alot of people that are unhappy are actualy ones that beta tested and never gave feedback.. unhelpful to say the least.

So yes, I would like to see a Plane Pack forum, to allow us to easily gather info and formulate a plan of attack. Change needs to start somewhere and I think this would help alot.

All that said though, people must remember that because they believe a plane flys like this or that, doesn't actualy make it so, where hard data is available aircraft are built to it, and if it then out turns or out runs and aircraft you think it shouldn't, please let us know, but also stop and think about it, and just makesure that your facts are right, I know how much hunting alot of builders do to find data, it's easy realy, constructive criticism, none accusational questions, are the key to helping

Hawk, what are your thoughts on a forum for the pack? It realy would help collate info on problems and developement.

posted 06-19- 01:22 AM            

Werner, I believe we all have a copy of that

posted 06-19- 08:34 AM               

The Wildcat was the first to be reworked. Just need to find out why the AI won't raise the landing gear. Psi- you've flown her as have several others and the responses were rather favorable.

Next, the Zero's (both models) need reworking. Jedi is redoing the Corsair Fm's so they won't be an uber plane.

The Ta-152- which used to be a ballistic prop plane (who needs an F-16) has been rebuilt and a new FM put on her- a beta as Hawkwind dug up a BUNCH of info for me and I need to go back and make changes. I had also fixed many of the FM issues on the older nodel. Some of you flew that version and were much happier with it.

I've totally rebuilt the Tiffy FM and only one issue remains, but I'm not getting any feedback- it should out turn a Fw 190 at 15,000 ft and below, which it does, but the question is -does it turn too tight now? As Nat said, getting feedback is difficult.

The only one of these planes that was included in 6.1 was the Tiffy. The Wildcat needs the AI problem fixed and it's ready to go.

The old Ta-152 needs to be pulled out and the new one used instead. (After I make the necessary changes)

Here's the real problem with the FM issues.
Tailslide and Zur took such a beating from the users, they've gone to spending most of their time on other projects (the side efect of inflammatory posts, e-mails telling them they were wrong when they had the data right in front of them, a refusal to believe them when they offered the hard data because it didn't fit others perceptions, and an overall lack of appreciation for their work). So how many people do we have overhauling the FM's ?

One- and several people are learning. But, my time has been taken up the last 3 weeks by real life, the update CD and dealing with this kind of stuff. So school has been delayed.

As far as testing goes- I've developed standards for max speed and climb rate tests. I have missions to test these in that I'm sending out tonight to those who are on my FM mail list.

One other thing to keep in mind. Many people say they don't care if a plane has historically accurate spin/stall characteristics as long as therest of the FM is accurate.

There is one thing everyone needs tro be aware of. Because this game uses a real physics engine, once you "dumb down" a FM to make the plane easier to fly- you also kill the edge that plane had in the ares it was most maneuverable. The new FM's will NOT be dumbed down, but it will also be mentioned that if they are too hard to handle, use the stickworks utility. Keep in mind that the same thing will happen. As you tame down the stick response, you'll lose some of the maneuverability in a plane.

This is also causing some of the discrepenciesin the FM. If you take a plane that was "de-tuned" and should out perform another plane (not de-tuned) and doesn't, the difference int the FM "tuning" is the cause.

I could go into a LOT more detail, but won't.
I will ask TS if he had to dumb down the Spit from too many complaints. I know the 109's aren't. This may be part of this issue.

------------------
"Da Jug"

FM question: Which end does the propeller thingy go on?
Fighter Squadron Central
ICQ: 121447410

posted 06-19- 09:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psi:
Werner, I believe we all have a copy of that

---

...and I've bought books I haven't read yet. I still have a copy of them, don't I? By your actions going on this sustained rant as you have, you obviously didn't read the Readme, at least with enough care and attention to notice that none of the FM issues you're going on about were a direct result of PP6.1 development as per the development log. Again, only spin can confirm this 100%, but at this point your evidence and the written evidence seems to be in contradiction.

Regardless, Da Jug's other post about why FMs seem a tad screwy in the game is very illuminating. Low and behold! To a significant extent we're limited by the power of the game! Three year old technology has got to start showing its age somewhere, and I'm not surprised its cropping up now.

Werner

posted 06-19- 10:06 AM            

I like Nat's idea of the "slowdown" and feel that this would improve any current PP. Try to stop side stepping my core intent, I just want people to be able to enjoy this sim, online/offline.

We could all throw data up here and any of it is subjective, we believe what we want for whatever purpose that it may fulfill for our individual needs at any given moment.

I was here when Tailslide was getting slammed around for his contributions, hell no it wasn't fair. But such is the scrutiny when you have a user accessible sim like this.

People have opinions on the vehicles they drive, the guns they shoot, the food they eat.

My intent is to get as many people online as I can, Nat likes this idea and many many more. If you use it I believe you have the right to an opinion, if you don't then you don't.

BTW show me a "closed ended thread" here

posted 06-19- 10:57 AM               

You're right, modding for the general public comes at the risk of putting up with crap from users. Maybe that's the point we've been missing all along, the modding for public consumption part. Hmm. Interesting.

I don't know what you're on about with the show me a closed thread, I have no reason to close the thread, or move it, but I'm certainly not going to stand idly by and put up with people who make totally unnecessary "picks and jabs" when the readme is there for all to see, and it says nothing of the anti-allied FM changes you allege.

Werner

posted 06-19- 11:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Da Jug head:
The new FM's will NOT be dumbed down, but it will also be mentioned that if they are too hard to handle, use the stickworks utility.

...This is also causing some of the discrepenciesin the FM. If you take a plane that was "de-tuned" and should out perform another plane (not de-tuned) and doesn't, the difference int the FM "tuning" is the cause.

...I know the 109's aren't. This may be part of this issue.

---

Thank god. I'm glad that by bringing them to the same level you're going to bring the spit up, not the 109 down.

Werner

posted 06-19- 11:27 AM            

I don't pretend to be the good guy, I just have an opinion, as you all do. As I said before I have the utmost respect for the people here that have done what they've done but that doesn't make me go blind and deaf.

I know this will be worked out, these guys, all of them, want what I want, to make this the greatest sim ever. If we continue to focus on all the negative, as you are, we'll never see past our noses.

posted 06-19- 11:35 AM               

I've offered solutions, I've made suggestions, and you turn around and try to pin this on me. Unbelievable.

Werner

posted 06-19- 12:11 PM            

I've read the above.

My apologies on the installer for the pack. As I've said before, until the installer is available please don't use 6.1 as online standard. No word on the installer from Dogma. Something is amiss here and I'll be after him again soon.

Hmm...

If 1.5.2.9 is the standard great - but I am not proclaiming it to be - heck I'm not around here much these days to comment. I still love this game, but real life is messing up my free time right now.

On the fms. Very few fm updates were made in 6.1 . The primary reason for 6.1 was to introduce Condor's dm and net loadouts. No one is complaining abou the engine dm too loudly so I guess Condor's project is a success.

I've never seen a planepack released where players didn't slam the change. So this isn't a surprise. To my knowledge the fm udpates were limited - however I believe the 109s may have gotten the update - if you note in the readme (the version above is a bit out of date - check my website version for the latest) I made a request for the 109 updates early on. I am not sure if in Condor's revisions / fixes later that he didn't acquire the updated 109 fms. So we'll have to wait for a word from him or the 109 fmer (Zur?).

As far as whether or not to have a pack versus online standard planes. Keep in mind that the 4 file planepack creates a common element of over 4,000 individual files. Good luck finding and standardizing that without a parfile based pack.

As far as deadlines, I try to set and keep to them. The tiffie update is an example of where I went around it to introduce something daJughead was very excited about. I really try to be flexible. But sometimes flexibility causes delays. Maury's loadouts and the B17G caused some major problems in the planepack development (I probably should not have tried to include them without more extensive prebeta testing) - but then that's what happens.

There have been several posts about changes in the behaviour of aircraft between 1.5 and 1.5.2.9. It is possible some of the above complaints are based around this change. I would suggest comparing the performance of 6.0 planes in 1.5 and 1.5.2.9 and then examining the same plane in 1.5 and 1.5.2.9. Document the variations, this could be helpful to all of the fm developers.

On the subject of variants, I am not adding new variants of existing planes to the pack. I am hesitant to remove planes although there are a couple that could probably go. The He100 however is historically important to SDOE (maybe not WWII) - as the first of the addon planes I think it deserves a permanent spot.

On 6.2 development - don't hold your breath for a quick release - just the other night I started assembling the files for the data12 update. The primary change will be for 512/1024 texture support. Unless people send me the updated sm files with this capability, I will have to do this myself - and my time is limited right now. Please don't send me texture files however. Large textures will not be added to the pack. I'll try to keep a running list of what's completed on my website in the development pages. If you decide to update an aircraft send me a note that you're working on it so I don't waste both of our times. daJugHead is improving fms as we go but that's about the only changes currently planned. As far as new planes, I haven't thought about it.

If you don't like how I'm doing the pack, please step up and take it over, I'd be pleased to pass it on as did Razer and Tailslide.

------------------
Spin

posted 06-19- 12:31 PM               

"I've said before, until the installer is available please don't use 6.1 as online standard."

Where did the push to make 6.1 standard come from? I'm curious, it certainly wasn't me, and it wasn't Psi.

"As far as whether or not to have a pack versus online standard planes. Keep in mind that the 4 file planepack creates a common element of over 4,000 individual files. Good luck finding and standardizing that without a parfile based pack."

Ok, it was just an idea I had. Thanks for clarifying that one.

Werner

posted 06-19- 01:30 PM            

As this discussion has moved forward and people have gotten more than a little ticked off, a central suggestion appears to have emerged. Simplify--but do it without hurting the game by leaving out all the terrific improvments that are being put together.

Psi, may have hit it on the head when he suggested making 1.5.2.9 / 6.0 / Nations v2 the on-line standard - and leaving it at that until newer versions are complete with self-installers ready to go.

The big questions are: Who will decide what the on-line standard is, and when will it become the "official" on-line standard? That's up to you guys who have been around for several years to decide. As things stand right now, getting the new patch up and running is beyond one heck of a lot of people. I said it before -- most of the guys who fly on-line are way ahead of the curve when it comes to computing.

Please don't misunderstand, I respect and appreciate all the hard work--the hours--that go into improving the game. But you have got to recongize that on-line flying is already beyond the reach of a lot of people who might otherwise try it.

You guys who have been here for a while will have to decide -- either there will be agreement on an on-line standard or there won't. Either installation of that standard will be simplified or it won't. If it isn't, then only a relative few will be able to keep flying on-line and newcomers who don't have your computing skills will be driven away.

Psi, had to walk me through my installation and tweaking of the new patch--even though some people consider me to be a computer "geek." I offer that as an example of how sophisticated some of the guys who are working on this game are - and how difficult on-line play has become for non geeks.

Either SDOE will be simplified to include more users - or it will be limited to a relative few who understand the technology needed to go on line.

From what I have seen, the SDOE community is a great bunch of people. There's a whole lot of creativity here. Surely, those creative minds can agree on a plan to establish an on-line standard that includes everybody - the computer wizards and the newcomers alike.

Flame my butt off if you wish - that's how I see it, and I'm still new enough to the game to have the perspective of an "outsider." I'd like to see this game not only survive, but be made simple enough so that others can get involved in on-line play.

Good flying!

posted 06-19- 03:10 PM               

One of the paradoxes that is now, given the size of the game, proven crippling is that previous attempts to form some sort of organization to coordinate development and act as the bridge between builders and flyers were immediately labelled as elitist. Any actions these people took were seen as an attempt to force their will upon everyone else. As a result we have a system of anarchy tempered only by the plane pack system. Now, some people are looking to the old-timers in the group to make decisions. I think the reluctance of many people to do this, aside from taking on even more projects, is simply that our prior experience was so negative. As Jeeves said in a reply to Bravehearts thread in Flame Wars, who wants to sign up for that kind of abuse? I concur with Jeeves, not me.

I don't have all the answers, I don't even know if I have any answers. All I've got are ideas, and on a good day, motivation.

I hate to admit it but I think 1.5 will never die. The patch is great, but there are still some people who have computer quirks with the patch and its tough sometimes getting them resolved. I have an email in to one of the patch team and I've yet to hear back. I'm hoping I will, I'd like to get up to speed with .9 and really enjoy what the patch crew has been slaving over for so long.

Werner

posted 06-19- 07:28 PM            

betwwen plane pack 6.0 and planepack update 6.1 was 6/7 months.

Every planepack evolves and without planepacks a few large par files thats all , compared to 4000 as spin said, individual little files!

I for one am Immenselly appreciative to Spins contribution.
And full support for the pack that got released. pp6.1...no moanins ,, just support!
online in the lobbies of 1.5... the New sdoe patchs time will come, but your patience is a virtue that SDOE will benefit from.

thats sounds holy! eek!

posted 06-19- 10:35 PM            

Ron to answer you question of just who decides, I did, and you know the outcome; patch .9 PP 6.0 and NV2
This is (for the time being) the online standard. I'm really not trying to throw my weight around guys so understand this is a decision that I've made for myself. This (for the time being) is a way that it will work for many, you just watch. And really it's just a simple way to say we now have order for online. I don't want to see all this spectacular effort go down the tubes, all of you that do the work, and the interests of a newcomer fade in frustration.

DJH has done a vast amount to help newcomers and I feel that in as much as there are questions about how too's there are people here that are willing to help. Just watch who is one of the first to post to a question. You guys do more than I could ev