questions/editor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> Scenarios and Modding



Message

lycortas -> questions/editor (12/7/2011 3:45:43 AM)

Hard Sarge, Harley,

I worked with the two of you ,IIRC, helping out JC years ago with Talonsoft BTR. How did so many errors we fixed creep back into this?

As an example the JU 388 in the game has the stats of the unarmed recon version but with guns, lots of guns.

Another would be the B25J having the wrong armament scheme for Europe, you have the Pacific scheme here.
As an aside, when i was creating the CHS for War in the Pacific i had to mod the B25 as it was the European armament scheme.

There are also many changes i would make on the maneuver values that are subjective but i feel are 'more correct' than those listed.

Is there any chance of an editor or another patch with some aircraft changes?

Michael



bcgames -> RE: questions/editor (12/9/2011 5:48:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lycortas
Is there any chance of an editor or another patch with some aircraft changes?

This is a question worth answering--especially if the answer is negative. I like the game and have done my part to contribute to its advancement. But if what is now--is it, then I would like to know so that I may better judge how much I should continue to contribute to this game in the future. Just wondering.

In the end though, thanks for the game. I've really enjoyed it.

v/r

bcgames



lycortas -> RE: questions/editor (12/9/2011 5:15:03 PM)

The game is certainly playable but i prefer historical accuracy; if i did not i would launch my aerial unicorn cavalry. With Valkyries.

I am bothered that i worked with JC fixing the initial errors from the Talonsoft release and here we get a re-release with the same old errors in it.

Mike



harley -> RE: questions/editor (12/9/2011 11:28:30 PM)

The editor question has been answered a hundred times. Not going to happen.

As for "same old errors"...

I just code, I don't do data - that's Ron's thing. But the data has been carefully checked and cross-checked. JCL created a one-man-band mod, with no real corroboration or collaboration. Our changes have been work-shopped with some very knowledgeable people over a several year period.



lycortas -> RE: questions/editor (12/9/2011 11:45:19 PM)

Harley,
You chose the wrong people. To be rude.

I know i fixed the B25 discrepancies in 1.06 with JC. That was one of the first things i helped with. The Moskito should not take more engines but more parts. Or just be removed.
The JU388 has the stats of the recon version but the armament of the night fighter.

The P51's maneuver value is backwards; the P51D was a worse maneuver-er than the B model. That is also something i know i worked with JC about.

About half of the maneuver values in this are incorrect. An example would be the Me109G vs the FW190. I have read the ETHINTS in the Library of Congress and the statements made by the leading American aces about these two aircraft, and i have read the British reports on both the Me109 and the FW190.

Another would be the A36 vs the Hurri IV. The A36 had no additional armour while the Hurri IV did have additional armour. I am unsure about the Typhoon, it was tough but nothing i have read said it was extra armoured. The only American aircraft that was in use here that was armoured was the P39. Which was shown in the per sortie losses by the P39; the lowest of any American fighter or fighter-bomber during the war.

There are many errors like this through the DB, if you are doing a patch i am quite willing to help on research.

When i was working on CHS for WitP i created a small program to repeat air to air combat results under different circumstances that allowed me to get a good feel for this system of Gary's.

Michael



bcgames -> RE: questions/editor (12/10/2011 2:58:09 AM)

Harley,

Thank-you for your response.

v/r

bcgames



harley -> RE: questions/editor (12/10/2011 1:14:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lycortas

Harley,
You chose the wrong people. To be rude.

Michael


Noones being rude. I'm just saying I don't do data. Those that do have more than one opinion to deal with. Yours is valid, but is not the be all and end all. It's just another opinion in the mix. Sorry if you feel that it's all wrong, but it doesn't get changed on one guy's opinion.

If we followed Gavin's advice, we'd have 999mph spitfires with 200mvr and 500 gun effectiveness...

If we followed Werner's advice, we'd have 999mph Me109s with 200mvr and 500 gun effectiveness...

If we followed Ron's advice, we'd have 99mph Me109s with 2mvr and 1 gun effectiveness...

If we followed my advice, we'd have 999mph sharks with lasers strapped to their heads with 200mvr. And Pegasii (Pegasuses?). This is why I don't do data.




npsergio -> RE: questions/editor (12/10/2011 2:25:31 PM)

LOL [:D][:D][:D]



lycortas -> RE: questions/editor (12/10/2011 8:30:21 PM)

Thanks for not being insulted Harley, that is why i said i was being rude; i do not like to be.

But i am pointing out actual mistakes such as the 388 and the Mitchel, these are not opinion.

And, i suspect i have more knowledge of the respective aircraft than almost anyone around as i am a pilot, i have read the testimony of the combat pilots from WW2 and i have read the ETHINTs.

Mike



lycortas -> RE: questions/editor (12/10/2011 8:31:08 PM)

Sharks with laser beams being ridden by Valkyries in sexy dresses.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.314453