Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[henkypenky]

Yesterday I bumped my four (4) year old request of December 2014 if someone was willing to put the FS2004 3-d of the Fokker G-1 - see https://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php?topic=44153.0;topicseen - back on the site. I was surprised, and frankly slightly irritated, about the speed with which this request was 'locked'.

The reason:

Bumping' of requests will also not be tolerated, and may result in your request being locked. Members found ignoring these posting rules will find their threads removed, without notice.

In general I agree with this rule; only I think that a time should be set for the 'bump' prohibition. Let's be honest and acknowledge that the current modders are different persons than the modders in 2014 - 2015 periode and that therefore a request after a certain period (2 years ?) should be allowed to be repeated.   

Cheers.

[SAS~Storebror]

I don't get the point.
I mean I do get that you are upset that the thread was locked, but I don't get why we should change a well established rule for the sake of... yep... what exactly?


Mike

[henkypenky]

Well upset is a large word, perhaps not amused is better. The reason for a change could be that now there's perhaps a modder who would like to tackle this, while 4 years ago there was none. A second chance for a (IMHO) sound request.

[Gatrasz]

So -just my two cents- maybe the solution could be to post a new updated request thread, maybe asking the previous one to be removed unless relevant posts are to be kept for memory (they could be cited in the new post, by the way) ?

I agree with henkypenky on the fact that a good request has to find its modder to become an actual project ; the problem with old requests is that most of the context is lost, and sometimes there are numerous pages of advices, informations from other modders, etc. So, it could be a better choice to renew the request by creating a new one, including new material from other relevant posts or just new research data ; it could be an occasion to turn the rule, as rude as it could seem in some cases, into an occasion to improve the requests quality as it happened many times before 

[max_thehitman]

Guys, don´t get upset over this. There are a tremendous amount of requests, and to be honest, there are
very few of us around these days to make them all come true, these things do take alot of time to create and
to be realized.

As for the requested post, I am wondering as to what exactly do you wish for the Fokker G.1 aircraft ? Is it 3d-modeling changes, or
a diferent skin (?)

The screenshots you posted do not make any good points for our game version. The IL2-1946 version screenshots are very much
jazzed edged and the FSX screenshots look very nice, which makes it look "better", but they are both very much the same.
The only noticeable diferences between the FSX version is the cockpit telescope in the nose, and our version does not have.
Many of these aircraft not all used this particular feature, so that thing is missing from our version.

There is a big diference between the aircraft used in the FSX. They all tend to look "brand new" with clean skins, and our
current version has a default skin which makes it look more "weathered and used". It all depends on the skin-template and
the artist who painted the skin.  Our version can also look exactly like the FSX version if you want. Just by making a
more detailed skin-template and diferent skins.

Please be more specific as to what you would like to see or use in our aircraft version.
I am sure in good time  it will be done, but do not forget that there are many many other things which are being
worked on at this moment , to make this IL2-1946+MODS to continue being one of the best games ever.
And there are not many modders to do the work.

[SAS~GJE52]

The request was posted and obviously nobody in our small community of modders considered it worth the trouble.

Any amount of re-posting, demanding changes to the rules or "bumping" is ever going to change that. On the other hand, if you are "not-amused" as you say, perhaps it might "amuse" you to give up some of the free time you spend making fruitless requests and learn how to do it yourself .... 

G;

[henkypenky]

@SAS~GJE52: Request ≠ demand, and if the general feeling on a request is

learn how to do it yourself

why bother with a request thread at all?

[SAS~Storebror]

Request ≠ demand - so far, so good, but...
You have started the initial request on December 30, 2014.
You have expressed your disappointment about the lack of willingness to immediately jump at your request pretty soon thereafter.
6 days later to be precise.
Diligently missing the fact that it was the turn of the year and people might have other intentions.
In a thread with 6 replies in total, you've scored half of the posts.
Then you come and resurrect it years later.
Which is against the rules.
Which immediately brings you up onto the scene with this new thread where, instead of showing a certain degree of self-reflexion, you request a change of the rules in order to get your very personal concern up on everone else's desk again.

Let me put it that way: You didn't do your concern any good.

GJE52 is right: Instead of requesting (or demanding, for the same effect) that modders change their mods and forums change their rules to better suit your matters, ask yourself what you can do to make things happen yourself. It'll get you further than this attempt, trust me.
Skylla was absolutely right when he pulled that request thread.
And the rules are right as they are.


Mike

[henkypenky]

Ok, clear.