Hitman, I will take your statement one step further as well.
Inputing "real-life" data NEVER guarantees that "realistic" results are achieved in our preferred sim.
Hours and hours of problem element isolation and small incremental changes/tweaks must be made to reach a desired effect.
Often hours, days, or even weeks of work must be SCRAPPED and thrown away due to more favorable work-arounds or even total failure.
Furthermore, concerning whining critics. I think that individuals who sit back and wait for mods to be released... only to whine that "this" or "that" is SOooo wrong...
... may have been away from stock SH3 for so long that they've forgotten how far things have come. Modders have spoiled them.
To this kind of critic we say "GO JUMP IN THE LAKE! Mod it yourself. There is nothing magic about modding SH3. If it was easy, everyone would do it. What have you done to fix the problem?"
Let me also say, that constructive criticism is an entirely different animal that allows for conference and either ends in solution or at the very least, understanding why things are the way they are. I think also, that the constructive critic may also realize that if his point is proven... it may also mean that the modder(s) either drop or reconstruct matters that require a great deal of work and time. Constructive critics have caused the GWX dev team to conquer great obstacles.
VonHelsching is a great example of a constructive critic. VonHelsching joined the GWX Dev team and spent six months reconstructing ship damage models and faced HOURS of boredom observing... and correcting. (Not to mention late war player sensor options, battery life fixes, the Averof... and many other things.)
The difference between the two types of critic though, I think may be as simple as attitude. One simply to bitches loudly until "his issue" is fixed... and the other looks for a way to understand or fix things.
|