ED Please correct these bugs?

[Ardillita]

sure!

 

I dont think ED should listen to 1 guy in detriment of all others opinions on what should be fixed next. This is what you are demanding. And the keyword is "demand". "Demanding" something YOU want doesnt mean you will get it, and certainly it wont be your all powerfull will that shall bow the whole comunity to your biddings!

 

The game needs lots of fixes granted that, but it wont be you who will tell what the developer should , or not be doing because then there will be cryers for other things too and you are not special enough for ED listen just to you.

 

We already have lots of PR from ED and I dont think we need more. IMHO its only going to give margin for more crying contests and frankly Im a bit wary of coming here and find these forums full of this. There are alot of more interesting things to post. Something more pleasant.

 

Cheers!

 

Sure, 200% agree with you, but it is not me demanding anything. You say the sim need a lot of fixes... ok, how many people throught this forum have requested all the same fix? Examples? did only one person requested the online refuelin to be fixed? I think there a a lot of post about that, and not from only one poster.

How many people have requested 3d engine development to get better perfom,ance? only one or the issue has been presented many times? I could continue with a lot of examples.

The original post requested a fix may be a in a bad way, and the fix may be is for the interest of very few people, but what is the point, the real point in the discussion?

 

The point in my opinion is: ED doesn´t give suppor, ED never makes offial declarations, ED never says anything about customer compalints. I don´t want ED hears to one little fix request of one little detail... but if there are a forum, a customer forum where they can read generalicez complaints about some features, have they EVER made something about it? No, the haven´t, am I right?

 

This is the point I think. And I agree: the programmers can´t respond this kind of things, this is a customers atention work

[GGTharos]

A) How many 'fixes' did you pay for?

B) How many fixes were included with each patch?

 

I think anyone who says that ED does not listen and ignores their customers needs to go over the patch READMEs again. Twice.

[upyr1]

I think the point is not that ED dose not give information over what the are planing to fix in the patch comming up. Like let's the graphics issue and the Black shark screen shots- we're all impresed with the detail but we're also sitting terrified that we won't be able to play the game becuse it will kick the most advnaced computer in the CPU for the next 10 years.

What we would need to hear from ED to lay this to rest is that BS will run optimialy on X.X gig of ram and X GHZ CPU.

[tflash]

Ardillita,

 

Maybe they should ask "Betty" to take care of you all. Given her sensual, yet assertive voice, I guess we'll be all of the hook for a while.

 

I'm sure she'll like the A-10 reticule story. How big was it again?

[EvilBivol-1]

did only one person requested the online refuelin to be fixed?

The online refueling problem is not a bug.

How many people have requested 3d engine development to get better perfom,ance?

The fps problem is not a bug.

 

So... what else you got?

[Red Star]

So what are they then? Features? :lol:

[Alfa]

I think the point is not that ED dose not give information over what the are planing to fix in the patch comming up. Like let's the graphics issue and the Black shark screen shots- we're all impresed with the detail but we're also sitting terrified that we won't be able to play the game becuse it will kick the most advnaced computer in the CPU for the next 10 years.

What we would need to hear from ED to lay this to rest is that BS will run optimialy on X.X gig of ram and X GHZ CPU.

 

The system requirements for Black Shark are the same as they were for Flaming cliffs.

 

You will never get anyone to declare that x amount of ram, x processor speed or x videocard will guarantee x fps count - for the simple reason that you can't.

 

But if it will ease your mind, I can tell you that BS runs much better on my system than Flaming Cliffs did and that the new ground vehicule models have no performance impact what so ever on my system.....the fps count remains exactly the same whether a colum of vehicules consists of types with new 3D models or types still employing the old ones.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[EvilBivol-1]

So what are they then? Features?

As far as online refueling... yes. It is a feature that, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be in the game at all. But they must've felt that its a worthwhile thing to do even if it has problems because we might enjoy it... what a mistake that was, huh?

 

If you disagree, call them technological limitations. Design flaws. Poorly implemented design concepts.

 

Not bugs.

 

P.S. I'm not defending Lock On. That is a separate conversation. I'm well aware of its substantial flaws and various bugs. I am defending the developers against what I feel are unfounded or undeserved accusations. Even if they would like to, they do not choose which planes to model based on national bias or personal preference (that is a privilege only we - the consumers - can afford). They *actively* participate in the forums, both providing and receiving information. Much of their work is based on user input.

 

Obviously, that doesn't mean they work for us. While our *collective* contribution to their work is considerable, it isn't defining. You'd be disillusioned to think otherwise.

[hitman]

As far as online refueling... yes. It is a feature that, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be in the game at all. But they must've felt that its a worthwhile thing to do even if it has problems because we might enjoy it... what a mistake that was, huh?

 

If you disagree, call them technological limitations. Design flaws. Poorly implemented design concepts.

 

Not bugs.

Then what qualifies as a bug?

[SwingKid]

The system requirements for Black Shark are the same as they were for Flaming cliffs.

 

Not quite - Flaming Cliffs runs fine on Windows 98/ME. Black Shark probably won't.

 

:(

-SK

[Ardillita]

oh oh

 

A) How many 'fixes' did you pay for?

B) How many fixes were included with each patch?

 

I think anyone who says that ED does not listen and ignores their customers needs to go over the patch READMEs again. Twice.

 

 

Oh oh, I read it. And if my memory don´t fail, is not writen there that the "GOD" capacity of ewr and awacs was adjusted?

 

As far I can see, the ewr stations still can see through terrain, and if not, read the post that appeared some days ago about costal defenses havein more range with ewr station bein near of them and see the tracks posted. Those ewr are passing target information to the costal defenses... and the targets are well behing terreain maskin jajajaja.

 

The readme file is one thing, it does not reflect the major features/bugs request of the community. I didn´t knew about the 80% of the bugs posted in that readme file, and Im sure most of poeple here didn´t either till they read the readme file

 

And yes, I paid the game thinkjing in haveing support, tech support, wich I have not.

[Ardillita]

not bugs?

 

As far as online refueling... yes. It is a feature that, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be in the game at all. But they must've felt that its a worthwhile thing to do even if it has problems because we might enjoy it... what a mistake that was, huh?

 

If you disagree, call them technological limitations. Design flaws. Poorly implemented design concepts.

 

Not bugs.

 

P.S. I'm not defending Lock On. That is a separate conversation. I'm well aware of its substantial flaws and various bugs. I am defending the developers against what I feel are unfounded or undeserved accusations. Even if they would like to, they do not choose which planes to model based on national bias or personal preference (that is a privilege only we - the consumers - can afford). They *actively* participate in the forums, both providing and receiving information. Much of their work is based on user input.

 

Obviously, that doesn't mean they work for us. While our *collective* contribution to their work is considerable, it isn't defining. You'd be disillusioned to think otherwise.

 

 

 

Sorry, can you see the refueling basket in online flights? or only the server can see the basket and the rest of pilots don´t...

That is not a bug?

[EvilBivol-1]

or only the server can see the basket and the rest of pilots don´t...

Last time I tried it, the clients could see it, they just had to get real close first.

 

Ardillita, I'm sorry, but I've spent more time than I should've in this discussion as it is. In whatever small way I represent ED as a tester, I'm sorry you feel you were unsupported in your purchase and I hope next time works out better for you.

[Weta43]

For 1.12, ( From fockon.ru, the list was a similar length for 1.11 ):

 

"Corrected bugs and added features 1.12a

 

"Ghost" spikes and nails on RWR SPO-15 and TEWS bug fixed.

Corrected target acquisition for SAM depending on range to given target. SAM's will now engage the closest target first.

Random MP ("Multiplayer") black screens fixed.

Fixed incorrect MP flaps animation on A-10A. Removed combat flaps position on F-15C and Su-33.

Engine sound on MP aircraft will play correctly now according to actual RPM.

Upper inlet animation on MP MiG-29 during engine startup sequence is fixed.

Canopy open/close speed on all MP aircraft is now correct.

Increased the power of the anti tank mine (landmine object in the Static Objects list).

F-15 HUD target designator "freeze" bug fixed.

The target range is no longer displayed on the F-15 HUD in HOJ mode.

F-15 VSD target bearing indication fixed.

F-15 radar scan width settings no longer reset after locking a target.

F-15 range to target HUD indication when AIM-9 selected is fixed.

F-15 TWS designated targets are no longer tracked when a target goes out of radar FOV when using a narrow azimuth.

Su-27/33 and MiG-29A/S/G HPRF and MPRF head-on detection range is fixed.

Jammer detection range logic fixed.

Spectator's ping logic fixed.

SAM missiles can not longer see targets thought terrain.

Ship Fiendly Fire bug fixed.

Application/PC freeze when changing object in mission editor when summary window is active is fixed.

A2A missiles resistance to passive counter-measures is tuned.

Standard Flight Model aircraft take-off shaking effect in MP removed.

Game block during mission loading which was appearing at the end of month is fixed.

Implemented a new joystick profile system. Now a player can use several joysticks of the same type and name. Each joystick instance will have a unique configuration file by way of a uniquely assigned GUID.

Axis smooth logic fixed.

The drag index for ECM MPS-410 "Omul", L-081 "Fantasmagoria", ODAB-500 has been decreased.

AGM-114 and AGM-65E missiles now have the proportional navigation type homing.

BGM-109, P-700 and P-500 missiles main engine operation time is fixed.

CH-47D, SH-53E, AH-1W, UH-60A, Mi-8 will operate from carrier deck now.

Target aspect indication in track mode is fixed.

STT track memory logic fixed.

F-15 radar freeze bug fixed.

Rearm using Alt-R is fixed.

The indication in STT mode on Russian fighters with range to target more than 100km is fixed.

Kh-55 cruise missile removed.

Tu-22M3 is no longer carries the Kh-65 missiles.

The bug with vehicles positions located over structures in MP is fixed.

EOS lock range is fixed.

9M114 ATGM warhead strength is tuned. "

 

Now you could argue that some of these are actual changes & that some of the fixes didn't work as well as you and they might have liked, but AWACs & EWR don't allert other players of your position if they have no line of sight any more - so something was fixed (the artillery thing seems a desirable feature to me)

What you can't argue without looking petulant just because your particular pet peeve didn't make it onto the list, is that E.D. doesn't fix bugs, or that the bugs they fix aren't fixed in response to customer feedback. It just plainly isn't true.

 

I don't quite know why I'm even bothering here, but if E.D. don't respond to customer feedback about bugs, how did we get from 1.12 to 1.12a within just a few weeks? Lots of people complained that this was a big deal & E.D. got on it straight away.

 

Most of the major complaints have been addressed in some way - even though in a couple of cases people might be less happy with the end result than with the original error.

[SwingKid]

Now you could argue that some of these are actual changes & that some of the fixes didn't work as well as you and they might have liked, but AWACs & EWR don't allert other players of your position if they have no line of sight any more - so something was fixed (the artillery thing seems a desirable feature to me)

What you can't argue without looking petulant just because your particular pet peeve didn't make it onto the list, is that E.D. doesn't fix bugs, or that the bugs they fix aren't fixed in response to customer feedback.

 

Wow - and after all that appreciation, he didn't even ask for what he wanted.

 

What kind of flight simmer ARE you?! :shocking:

 

-SK

[Weta43]

I want:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=10910&page=1

 

and

 

post 10 of

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=11956

 

And Radar fixes & radar seeker logic fixes and almost everything anybody else has asked for

 

- and I want it all NOW!

 

:-)

[Shepski]

Then what qualifies as a bug?

 

Online refueling is not a feature... it just happens to work the way it does so be happy about the fact you have the capability at all. Because it's not a feature the team won't bother wasting resources on it. It's also possible that to get it working correctly is a very large task that might be limited by the engine.

 

If online refueling was a planned feature and didn't work as it's supposed to then you have a bug in that system.

 

Think of it as a bonus and not a bug after all they could remove it completey then no one would complain about what they think might be a bug. ;)

 

The missile sensors not behaving exactly like you think they should is not a bug. If the missile sensors didn't work at all then you have a bug. Sensor work requires tweaking data and trial and error to improve the performace which is done if time and resources allow it. Right now all the time and resources are spread between Black Shark's helicopter and ground vehicle warfare simulation and whatever else Eagle might be working on non Lock On related.

[Shepski]

Not quite - Flaming Cliffs runs fine on Windows 98/ME. Black Shark probably won't.

:(

 

Maybe you're the bug that needs to be squashed... or your decrepid 98 machine anyway. :chair: :P

[Shepski]

Think of the EWR giving artillery units a longer range as being spotters or scouts in the field. Without them you really casterate the capability of the big guns by using line of sight only.

[SwingKid]

Maybe you're the bug that needs to be squashed... or your decrepid 98 machine anyway. :chair: :P

 

You do realize, I can't possibly upgrade now... After holding out this long? That would be crazy!! Vista64 is practically on top of us!

 

So close, so close to skipping ME, 2000, and XP completely... Just a little more time, and I've beat the system... :)

 

-SK

[Shepski]

You do realize, I can't possibly upgrade now... After holding out this long? That would be crazy!! Vista64 is practically on top of us!

 

So close, so close to skipping ME, 2000, and XP completely... Just a little more time, and I've beat the system... :)

 

:megalol: :pilotfly:

[upyr1]

But if it will ease your mind, I can tell you that BS runs much better on my system than Flaming Cliffs did and that the new ground vehicle models have no performance impact what so ever on my system.....the fps count remains exactly the same whether a colum of vehicles consists of types with new 3D models or types still employing the old ones.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

True you cant garantee but some one saying "I'd sugest x thats what the testers are hapy with would be nice" a guideline so we can have rough idea...any how as you are a tester I'll take your word that ED is fixing up the graphics and giving us better graphics with the same frame rate..which means BS is gonna rock..and it could mean that future ED products using a simular engine will have better frame rates as tech catches up....:joystick:

[upyr1]

Think of the EWR giving artillery units a longer range as being spotters or scouts in the field. Without them you really casterate the capability of the big guns by using line of sight only.

I'll usethe Awacs and pretend they are J-stars...

LOL works for me

[upyr1]

You do realize, I can't possibly upgrade now... After holding out this long? That would be crazy!! Vista64 is practically on top of us!

 

So close, so close to skipping ME, 2000, and XP completely... Just a little more time, and I've beat the system... :)

 

-SK

How much ram you got on that puppy- you know how to over come the 512 Mb limit if so I'm thinking of downgrading to win 98,.

[chris2802]

You do realize, I can't possibly upgrade now... After holding out this long? That would be crazy!! Vista64 is practically on top of us!

 

So close, so close to skipping ME, 2000, and XP completely... Just a little more time, and I've beat the system... :)

 

-SK

 

You've had 98 for all these years?! You realise the required level of patience more or less elevates you to saint-hood! lol

 

Chris