DCS: MiG-21 Preliminary Changelog

[eyusuf]

I'm getting tired of seeing your negative comments everywhere.

 

Learn to appreciate that a team consisting of only four men with no prior (release) experience is working around the clock to bring us a world-class module.

 

Can you please explain to me how your mind works, because I don't see how this can be interpreted as negative: :huh:

 

Originally Posted by eyusuf

One things for sure ... this team does not disappoint when it comes to consistent performance.

 

Well done.

[Bob-68]

I'm getting tired of seeing your negative comments everywhere.

 

Learn to appreciate that a team consisting of only four men with no prior (release) experience is working around the clock to bring us a world-class module.

 

Maybe if it was tested properly in the first place instead of being rushed out on a whim, you wouldn't be seeing negative comments!

[Flagrum]

Maybe if it was tested properly in the first place instead of being rushed out on a whim, you wouldn't be seeing negative comments!

:doh:

 

You read the comment that you replied to ... and still failed so miserabely to grasp even remotely what the poster said.

 

edit:

And that with just your 4th posting here. :thumbup: :doh:

... but I guess, this is a case of "Welpenschutz" here?

Edited October 9, 2014 by Flagrum

[Flagrum]

Can you please explain to me how your mind works, because I don't see how this can be interpreted as negative: :huh:

 

Originally Posted by eyusuf

One things for sure ... this team does not disappoint when it comes to consistent performance.

 

Well done.

Might have to do with your constant negativity lately. When then a genuine positively meant posting accidentally slips in, it is hard to reckognize the difference at times.

 

Maybe you should generally nerf your sarcasm a bit?

[Gargoyle1]

Yes! :)

 

Improved frames. can't wait! :D

[statrekmike]

After some testing, I have found that the oxygen bug is still present in the open beta, at 30,000 feet and a full fuel load (one 800L and two 400L tanks), you will run out of air before you run out of fuel.

[Bob-68]

:doh:

 

You read the comment that you replied to ... and still failed so miserabely to grasp even remotely what the poster said.

 

edit:

And that with just your 4th posting here. :thumbup: :doh:

... but I guess, this is a case of "Welpenschutz" here?

 

 

I still stand by what I said.

 

Proper testing and we wouldn't be suffering all the server stalls and lag.

 

5th post now :smartass:

 

Maybe if I, like you, spent enough time in the basement, I could be such a big star on the ED forums. :thumbup:

 

Now let's all suffer yet another one of your arrogant replies!

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bob-68

[Flagrum]

I still stand by what I said.

 

Proper testing and we wouldn't be suffering all the server stalls and lag.

 

5th post now :smartass:

 

Maybe if I, like you, spent enough time in the basement, I could be such a big star on the ED forums. :thumbup:

 

Now let's all suffer yet another one of your arrogant replies!

You are a really bright mind. Yes, if there were more tests, then probably more bugs would have been found and maybe even fixed. Congratulations for this truism.

 

But now read again what TurboHog wrote. Hint 1: he talks about a small team. Hint 2: a team that has not only to deal with bugs and guys like you, but also with a learning curve.

 

Do you "already" see where this all leads to? Last hint: reality. Reality often makes it difficult to get ones wishes to come true.

 

Or to put it bluntly: do you really think, they would not have tested more if they had the ressources to do so? Or do you suggest, they should have tested 4-6 hours per day more, additionally to their 16-18(+) shifts during the last weeks and months?

 

I firmly believe that you don't have to be a bright "star" to see the problem here - even a small light like you should be able to get this.:thumbup:

[Bob-68]

You are a really bright mind. Yes, if there were more tests, then probably more bugs would have been found and maybe even fixed. Congratulations for this truism.

 

But now read again what TurboHog wrote. Hint 1: he talks about a small team. Hint 2: a team that has not only to deal with bugs and guys like you, but also with a learning curve.

 

Do you "already" see where this all leads to? Last hint: reality. Reality often makes it difficult to get ones wishes to come true.

 

Or to put it bluntly: do you really think, they would not have tested more if they had the ressources to do so? Or do you suggest, they should have tested 4-6 hours per day more, additionally to their 16-18(+) shifts during the last weeks and months?

 

I firmly believe that you don't have to be a bright "star" to see the problem here - even a small light like you should be able to get this.:thumbup:

 

And there it is.

 

There are ways and means this could of been tested before release, and part of the blame should be on ED as well for allowing it to be rushed out.

 

I'm sick to death of jumping into servers and waiting 10 or so secs while the damn thing loads.

[Corrigan]

First of all, it's in open beta, so if you don't want bugs, you can wait for the final release.

 

Could there be fewer bugs? Sure. Is it reasonable that a dev team's first release is less smooth than the average? Yes. Have LNS, despite their lack of experience and personnel/resources, still produced one of the best modules for DCS ever? Yup.

 

There are ways and means this could of been tested before release, and part of the blame should be on ED as well for allowing it to be rushed out.

 

 

It's "could have". Come on, focus.

[ApoNOOB]

Hey Super smart Bob, how many bugs have you reported in the open beta? Anything you have contributed lead to a fix?

[Bob-68]

First of all, it's in open beta, so if you don't want bugs, you can wait for the final release.

 

Could there be fewer bugs? Sure. Is it reasonable that a dev team's first release is less smooth than the average? Yes. Have LNS, despite their lack of experience and personnel/resources, still produced one of the best modules for DCS ever? Yup.

 

 

 

 

It's "could have". Come on, focus.

 

 

Well yes, could have.

 

Lets hope this is a lesson learned for any future "modules".

 

ApoNOOB, I wouldn't waste my cash on such a thing!

 

Now before we get a rush of "jumping on the bandwagon" replies, I'm going to leave it here.

 

End of.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Bob-68

[Corrigan]

That's generally how experience works, yes.

[xxJohnxx]

ApoNOOB, I wouldn't waste my cash on such a thing!

 

It seems you understood the concept of a free market afterall. You don't have to buy what you don't like.

 

However, the MiG is far from beeing unplayable. You would know that if you stoped complaining about something that doesn't affect you, and instead gave it a try.

[JG27_Arklight]

I noticed that a few of the graphical glitches are not in the patch notes (landing gear doors passing through centerline stores, and seat frame, or whatever it is, sticking out of the right side of the canopy). Are these also going to be patched?

 

Thanks, LN Team.

[Eldur]

I just start to wonder what ED is doing the open beta stuff for, as there's practically no existent timeframe for bugs being reported and fixed till the final release of that version. They didn't even change the build number. So it's absolutely the same update with no further changes made, just without the open beta tag. Just leads us to having 2 installs at the same time.

Instead they could just release it normally right away.

 

At least the update is a very huge improvement even though it's still not perfect :)

Thanks goes to LNS :thumbup:

[Valkenswaard]

Update is up in the release version.

Thx LN and ED.

 

Greets

Valken

[Corrigan]

I just start to wonder what ED is doing the open beta stuff for, as there's practically no existent timeframe for bugs being reported and fixed till the final release of that version. They didn't even change the build number. So it's absolutely the same update with no further changes made, just without the open beta tag. Just leads us to having 2 installs at the same time.

Instead they could just release it normally right away.

 

At least the update is a very huge improvement even though it's still not perfect :)

Thanks goes to LNS :thumbup:

 

They probably just want to check that the entire installation doesn't break, like a few updates ago.

[TurboHog]

LN, is it correct that the FM changes as mentioned in the OP did not make it to the release version. (Most of them marked in bold, except the FPS tweaks, they work)

 

Because I didn't see them in the change log posted in the official announcement and taking off is just as bumpy as before. Haven't tried out high altitude performance...

 

By the way, the FPS tweaks are really awesome. You guys did an outstanding job!

[Corrigan]

Some of my squad buddies talked about take-offs being improved in the beta update, so if you don't see any difference now I guess they found a problem and pulled that change from the patch.

[Cibit]

Congratulations on the release of the patch LN very speedy work:) Looking forward to flying the new version:thumbup:

[Flagrum]

Take offs are a lot smoother now but are still a bit bumpy (or rather "wobbly" ... motions are softened, but still very noticable) for my taste at higher speeds. But that is just a unfounded, personal opinion. :o)

 

edit:

Oh, you mean the patch in beta vs. the patch in release branch now? No idea, not tried the release version, yet. Just talking about the patch in the beta branch.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Flagrum

[Corrigan]

Take offs are a lot smoother now but are still a bit bumpy (or rather "wobbly" ... motions are softened, but still very noticable) for my taste at higher speeds. But that is just a unfounded, personal opinion. :o)

 

edit:

Oh, you mean the patch in beta vs. the patch in release branch now? No idea, not tried the release version, yet. Just talking about the patch in the beta branch.

 

Yeah, maybe you could check the full release out and tell us if that difference is gone when you get a chance.

[TurboHog]

My information is based on a single take-off though...

 

Will test my climb-out and cruise performance scenario's later today.

[Flagrum]

Hrm. Hrrrmmm...

 

I performed a couple of take-offs now with the 1.2.10u2 release branch version, i.e. the definately unaltered version.

 

And ... I can see not much of a difference compared to the beta branch u3 version. Granted, I tested it under u3 only a few times, just to check against the change log. I guess, I am a victim of the placebo effect here ... lol. Or maybe I saw slight differences because of different loadouts/aircraft weights? Dunno ...

 

edit:

But that explains why I was not yet really happy with the behaviour under beta u3, lol ...