muzik: What do you believe the net effect of adding Mixture would be?
First let me reiterate again that I suggested that you have
both complex and non-complex with no performance advantage for either! So the net result would be
all of your customers are happy and not just the ones who hide behind you because they cant form opinions of their own. Not a single one of them can tell me how it would negatively effect them if the performance characteristics were the same either way.
The other result is that all of those twits who scoff at AH because of its lack of complex engine management no longer have a leg to stand on. And that argument alone is literally worth its weight in gold lest we forget "the customer is always right!" How much money have you lost because of negative feedback on the net (youtube) when someone reads "AH sucks, their FM is like pacman, blah blah blah?" Losing a single customer at a restaurant has been calculated that the lifetime loss is over 6 digits!
From a business standpoint this is a win/win for your current customers and it satisfies criteria that potential customers will use to judge and ultimately choose or reject your game. And that is not theory or a possibility, that is fact and has already happened to you on multiple occasions.
I have heard you argument that complexity and realism are the same thing and people trying to argue the point that they want things as real as possible. They are not the same thing.
We know the difference between FULL realism and a slightly more accurate game. Why are you asking us to choose between a little more complexity and an extreme we did not ask for?
Adding mixture control would only have effects on the range of the aircraft. When in a fight it has 0 effect and adding it would actually make things more difficult then in real life. Most planes with one hand you can put 3 levers forward in one motion. I.E. similar to what our wep key does, puts all forward. You would argue that it should be 3 different keys because it is more "realistic" but it actually adds complexity that does not exist in a real aircraft. There are so many things that are harder to do in a sim, then when flying for real. The net effect is that work load is higher in the sim then in the real thing.
As I said earlier I dont want to debate performance issues but this is a paragraph out of the following article.
"Engines run on a mixture of fuel and air. We know that, for takeoff, the mixture is set to full rich, while, for cruise, we lean. Why do we do that? What happens inside the engine? If the mixture is too lean – I mean way too lean – it won’t burn: it’s all air and hardly any fuel. If it’s too rich – way too rich – it won’t burn either: it’s all fuel and there’s no oxygen left to allow it to burn. Somewhere between too rich and too lean there’s an optimum mixture; the mixture that produces optimum power."
http://www.huygens.org/sape/pilotage/Engines/index.htmlYes I do understand why it's more difficult on a pc than in RL and that it would make an unattractive feature to many in game. I already addressed that.
But it is a little more complex than pushing 3 levers
evenly regardless of altitude. So the difference comes down to whether someone fails to adjust these items correctly or at all in the heat of the combat. That isnt even considering the drag induced by cowl positions. From what Ive seen, IL2 has the complexity but no real substance behind it because they have apparently used a cookie cutter to do most of their work which means you have an opportunity to one up them!
On your IL2 argument you make a classic mistake of think only gain and not loss, how many people would not play do to the added complexity?
Do you really wish to wait 10 - 20 mins on the ground before flying each flight? Do you really wish to fly for many hours before engaging the enemy? If you answer no to any question then you really don't want everything to be realistic but only the things YOU wish. And hence the argument of wanting everything as real as can be falls apart ,and you are left with does the realism make it more or less fun for the most people.
I did not make that mistake, I suggested allow both, with no performance advantage.
You are trying put words in our mouths to push us to an extreme we (myself especially) did not asked for. That's not an argument, thats a gimmick to force people to back down. I told you I agree with not doing anything that would change the way current players enjoy the game. We never said anything about changing field locations or warm up times. Some of us arent stupid, we understand there is fine line and it's not in the same place for everyone!
Youre a businessman and we just gave you ideas that could bring in more discriminating customers and youre telling your current customers what they want is silly when there are other businessmen out there who offer what we ask for. All we want is for you to be more successful and to hear, "sure, that might work. But we dont have time for it right now. Maybe in the future if conditions change, we will see!" We will understand.
Respectfully MUZIK
