CWDT BF109G Vol.I finally released !!!

I've just been led to that post Roger and I can see that they have now been banned. I won't excuse the behaviour there but I do perhaps understand it.

It seems in the thread that Phanis linked to, within the FS9 thread, that the textures were very clear in the screenshots. So that shouldn't be used as an argument against it from people who posted in that thread. This leaves the flight dynamics. it's been stated that the instructions in the manual need to be followed for the 109 to behave correctly, if these haven't been, then this issue is also resolved.

With that in mind, if I was the developer (and God forbid I ever will be), I too may just be a little upset.

Over the years I've only really had dealings with Phanis and found him to be the most amiable of people who I've never heard say a bad thing about anyone. I'm sorry that one heartfelt outburst (well several, but in a single thread), has led to a team that have offered so much to our community being banned.

Just my thoughts, again I'm not looking to start a fight.
 
Nick C said:
I've just been led to that post Roger and I can see that they have now been banned. I won't excuse the behaviour there but I do perhaps understand it.

It seems in the thread that Phanis linked to, within the FS9 thread, that the textures were very clear in the screenshots. So that shouldn't be used as an argument against it from people who posted in that thread. This leaves the flight dynamics. it's been stated that the instructions in the manual need to be followed for the 109 to behave correctly, if these haven't been, then this issue is also resolved.

With that in mind, if I was the developer (and God forbid I ever will be), I too may just be a little upset.

Over the years I've only really had dealings with Phanis and found him to be the most amiable of people who I've never heard say a bad thing about anyone. I'm sorry that one heartfelt outburst (well several, but in a single thread), has led to a team that have offered so much to our community being banned.

Just my thoughts, again I'm not looking to start a fight.
Click to expand...

That is true, i was a bit shocked to see it all kick off like that. However as i've said to some people, if the plane had been released a few years ago before it got stalled for several reasons, it would proberbly have been well liked, but things have changed, nowadays for £21 people expect it to be really good, lets just do a comparison .. for £24ish you can get aerosofts cat which is full of systems etc.

O well at the end of the day its all down to individual taste :engel016:
 
Nick C said:
I've just been led to that post Roger and I can see that they have now been banned. I won't excuse the behaviour there but I do perhaps understand it.

It seems in the thread that Phanis linked to, within the FS9 thread, that the textures were very clear in the screenshots. So that shouldn't be used as an argument against it from people who posted in that thread. This leaves the flight dynamics. it's been stated that the instructions in the manual need to be followed for the 109 to behave correctly, if these haven't been, then this issue is also resolved.

With that in mind, if I was the developer (and God forbid I ever will be), I too may just be a little upset.

Over the years I've only really had dealings with Phanis and found him to be the most amiable of people who I've never heard say a bad thing about anyone. I'm sorry that one heartfelt outburst (well several, but in a single thread), has led to a team that have offered so much to our community being banned.

Just my thoughts, again I'm not looking to start a fight.
Click to expand...

Just curious Nick, have you seen or flown the 109? Unfortunately I was part of that thread. Only legitimate concerns were respectufully raised; and they were legitimate. Those concerns where met with foul langue and disrespt. The worst example by anyone I've ever seen on this forum in four years or so.
 
Nick was last heard of watching a film, but yes, he has both seen and flown. He also let the team know his thoughts, from what he said in an earlier IM conversation.

I haven't got the Bf109, because it is a port, but have seen both the screenshots on the pre-release and post-release threads. I can see Nick's point that the reported texture shortcomings brought up in the release product are equally visible in the pre-release shots. On that thread, the same people later complaining are posting how good the aircraft looks. Obviously the flight dynamics and any performance issues cannot be seen from screenshots, but I see no difference at all in the textures shown.

As an aside, I would have banned them too, had they posted what they did on the FS9 release thread here on the forums which I moderate and administer.

As stiz says, I think this one was just delayed a little too long. I can understand entirely that developers get very attached to what they are making and criticism - especially of something that people were describing in glowing terms on pre-release threads - kicks very hard indeed. In my opinion that in no way justifies the reaction from certain individuals, but it does explain it a little.
 
IanP said:
Nick was last heard of watching a film, but yes, he has both seen and flown. He also let the team know his thoughts, from what he said in an earlier IM conversation.

I haven't got the Bf109, because it is a port, but have seen both the screenshots on the pre-release and post-release threads. I can see Nick's point that the reported texture shortcomings brought up in the release product are equally visible in the pre-release shots. On that thread, the same people later complaining are posting how good the aircraft looks. Obviously the flight dynamics and any performance issues cannot be seen from screenshots, but I see no difference at all in the textures shown.

As an aside, I would have banned them too, had they posted what they did on the FS9 release thread here on the forums which I moderate and administer.

As stiz says, I think this one was just delayed a little too long. I can understand entirely that developers get very attached to what they are making and criticism - especially of something that people were describing in glowing terms on pre-release threads - kicks very hard indeed. In my opinion that in no way justifies the reaction from certain individuals, but it does explain it a little.
Click to expand...

The aircraft looks fine on the outside. The VC is something from a very early FS9 model. Pictures in posts don't do justice to how poor the VC texturing is. That and MANY other problems. The only good thing about it was the sound package. Three years in development.........very poor effort.
 
stiz said:
to be fair i dont think it was 3 years constant development, didnt one of the team have health problems or a computer which died on em?
Click to expand...

Alright, three years from the point we were told developement was begun until it was released and the stuff that happened in between. Still doesn't change the point, it took three years but I wouldn't want to be unfair.
 
MudMarine said:
The aircraft looks fine on the outside. The VC is something from a very early FS9 model. Pictures in posts don't do justice to how poor the VC texturing is. That and MANY other problems. The only good thing about it was the sound package. Three years in development.........very poor effort.
Click to expand...


Glad you liked the sounds :d I tried a few new techniques out on this sound package. Wasn't sure how they'd be received. I was very nervous because I know some people are really up on this plane. I did some research, but I admitedly never really knew much about this plane (other than it shot down P-38s ...) before I worked on the sounds.

I know you're disappointed with the product, but I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of the overall effort. I wouldn't characterize the effort as very poor. We're all entitled to our opinions, but having been involved in the project a little bit I know there was a lot of effort involved with the aim for a good quality model. There may be legitimate differences in tastes (such as texturing style, flight modeling, etc.) but I know the developers were not deliberately putting out a very poor effort. I find it rather fun to fly and a great looking model. I only fly it in FS9 though, my PC can't do much with FSX even with the default models.

I know you were looking forward to this plane, and I am sorry you are disappointed with it.

- dcc
 
I agree with many of the things you said dcc. I'm sure the effort wasn't poor but the ultimate outcome was. I've always been more than fair to every developer in this forum. But when I feel it's not right and needs to be patched I'm going to say so. I don't feel the plane is a total right off, with some work on the VC and the FM it could be a great FS9 plane. I honestly feel the VC textures look like an early FS9 effort: that can be fixed. The ground handling and take off characteristics are just bad. No matter what flap position, trottle or prop setting I use the 109 took flight like a ton of bricks. It handle, to me, very sluggishly in the air: that can be fixed.

Rather than taking multiple peoples honest truthful thoughts we were called a foul word.......why? The offense taken was unjustified. I've been a simmer for a long time. I've spent a lot of money on add-ons. This is the first time I've ever felt that I wanted my money back. And the only thing that's stopping me from asking is your outstanding sound package! It sounds great in my FR 109's!

I'm truley sorry if anyone is/was offended! It's just the way I see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top