Friday Update - December 9, 2011

[BlackSix]

Hello!

Today will be a small informational update. Within the last two weeks on the forums were going to your questions about the current status of the project and the future. Today I publish answers of Ilya Shevchenko. Let's go:


1. Will the radio commands work in the upcoming patch or in the future?

Yes.We're working on it.
2. Are you planning to allow the player to leave the aircraft on the ground?

It is planned but as a low priority. This is a purely cosmetic feature. 3. Any progress on the SDK and scripts and triggers documentation?

Yes, but very slow. People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose.
4. Is Can you officially introduce your new employee to the forums, the one who will be tuning the flight model? Will he tune the current aircraft or has he already been switched to the new project?

The employee is learning the ropes.He is now studying the code using CloD aircraft as an example. He has enough reference to last him a lifetime. He does not require external help at the moment, and letting him speak to the community might perhaps cause him to lose sleep or run away and never look back.
We are going to streamline our work with the community altogether. Whenwe do need help, and that will happen soon enough, all the questions will come from and the answers will be gathered by none other than BlackSix,rather than the programmers directly.This isn’t just the FM,but alsowith othermattersof interest to us.
5. Will it be possible to run the game on 3 monitors?

Personally, I'm flying on three monitors. If it’s not working for you, we need a more specific description of the problem.
6. Will you ever make navigation lights, landing lights and the signal smokes, as the old "IL-2"?

See answer to question number 2.
7. You’ve stated earlier that the game will have a feature similar to Il-2_Compare. We understand it’s not a high priority. But will you ever include it in the game, or is this completely scrapped?

Yes, we already have this in the works, but only for the sequel.
8. Do you have an established partnership with Nvidia and AMD? Particularly interested in AMD, since 69xx series have a lot of glitches and artifacts.

We do have an established relations. We communicate constantly, even occasionally go to their offices. The graphicsare being completely redone now. The process very difficult and slow, and takes much more time than expected. All graphic problems will be corrected within this framework.
Most will not immediately appreciate this, but I hope that at least some of you will understand that this approach is much better in the long run. When you have old leaky pipes in the house, you can patch up each hole with an old sock and some duct tape in two minutes and then wait for it to burst again somewhere else. Or you can cut off the waterflow and completely replace the piping. Overkill for a single leak, yes, but much better in the long run.
9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.
10. Are you planning to update existing on-line maps or make new ones?

We will not update existing maps. We are making new ones, yes.
11. Are you planning water rescue for downed pilots?

See answer to question number 2.
12. Are you planning to enable collisions with the detached components of aircraft?

Yes.This is part of the work that we are currently doing on in-game physics.
13. Can you introduce a system of military ranks and awards?

Yes, for the sequel.
14. Will you do further work on weather effects (rain, thunderstorm and so forth)?

Yes, for the sequel.
15. Can you make it so that airstart aircraft start with the radiator fully open?

Can’t see why this should be a feature.
16. What specifically does the custom user skin file size affect in terms of performance?

The bandwidth mainly.
17. Are you planning to correct the flight model of the Bristol Blenheim MK.IV based on the reference you’ve received?

Yes.
18. When you are going to add Structural Limits to the FM's? (maximum allowable g acceleration on the aircraft structure. And the aircraft damage due to exceeding the Vne or maximum g acceleration).

Nothing causes more frustration on both sides than discussing structural limits. We do have a structural limit model already, and we will improve it. However it does not nor will it work like the model created by Team Daidalos. If this was question 1 or 2 I’d perhaps be more verbose. Most aircraft that exceeded their structural limit are written off on the ground, and the fact is established with a careful measurement with a fine ruler.
19. Will you make an SDK to create dynamic campaigns?

You don't need SDK to do it.
20. Are there plans for dedicated servers files?

Yes, at a later time.

[NSU]

thx for the Info

[Sven]

Thank you BlackSix!

[pupaxx]

...very alarming this news 4me, have I misunderstood or we will not have dynamic weather until the next game expansion (sequel)?:confused:

[Insuber]

Thank you BlackSix and Luthier. Trust is being rebuilt.

"and letting him speak to the community might perhaps cause him to lose sleep or run away and never look back."

Come on, we are not so nasty :-D

[Vulcanel]

Thanks BlackSix for sharing/translating the info, and also to Ilya for answering this questionnaire... no deadline for next patch? ;)

Regards.

[Cpt_Farrel]

Regarding the changes that will come with the sequel, will Cliffs of Dover benefit from them too, like IL-2 and Pacific Fighters?

BTW, rescuing downed pilots is really more a possibiility for a new mission type rather than a cosmetic detail too me... Still agree that there's lots of other things that should have priority though.

[Fjordmonkey]

Thank you BlackSix and Luthier. Trust is being rebuilt.

"and letting him speak to the community might perhaps cause him to lose sleep or run away and never look back."

Come on, we are not so nasty :-D

Some are :P

On-topic: Good news, and thanks for the update :)

[Trumper]

Regarding the changes that will come with the sequel, will Cliffs of Dover benefit from them too, like IL-2 and Pacific Fighters?



+1 to that question and also a big thank you for the update to Blacksix and Luthier.

[CWMV]

Excellent update!
Thanks BS and luthier.
Also great job BS!

[ATAG_Snapper]

Some are :P

On-topic: Good news, and thanks for the update :)

+1

Agree on all points quoted. :)

I like the analogy to fixing the leaky pipes. We will all benefit in the long run despite our impatience right now.

[BPickles]

18. When you are going to add Structural Limits to the FM's? (maximum allowable g acceleration on the aircraft structure. And the aircraft damage due to exceeding the Vne or maximum g acceleration).


Thank you BS for asking this Question for me :) I'm gathering he is saying in response that "no aircraft wont tear themselves apart due to over g but they will have more non visual damage effect process".

Could you mention to Ilya that if it hasn't been thought of already but the Dev team of course, a good sound effect for engine over rev when exceeding structural limits would create a great atmosphere in the cockpit.

Thank you BS for the update.

[mazex]

Best update we've had the last five years I think :)

[Flanker35M]

S!

Great news on the graphics engine!! AS said, having a SOLID engine to work on makes it easier to add more in the future :) I am happy!

[jamesdietz]

YAY! A FRIDAY uPDATE!

[smink1701]

WHEN...the following is from Luthier on October 17th...almost two months ago.

“Our main priorities now are:

1. Physics and FM.
2. AI…this should give us quite a dramatic change in how air combat looks and feels.
3. Performance. We are in final stages of testing…FPS increase will be in the final version, but it shouldn’t be less than 50%.
4. Sound. The sound in the v15950 is considered a beta. We will continue to improve existing sound, and to add new ones to the aircraft and to the world around them.
5. SDK. As promised earlier, still planning to release a map-making SDK in the near future. More details will be released when we are ready for them.”

Luthier should have a feel at this point on timing. For those that work in any business, you can always give a boss or customer an idea of when something is going to be delivered. Give us a tentative date so we are all on the same page in terms of expectations.

[BaronBonBaron]

Yay! Thanks for the update. :-P

[KDN]

Thank you!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Hello!

Today will be a small informational update. Within the last two weeks on the forums were going to your questions about the current status of the project and the future. Today I publish answers of Ilya Shevchenko. Let's go:
Thanks BS! That was very informative!

[smink1701]

Thanks BS! That was very informative!

OK...somthing is better than crickets but seriously, what NEW information do we have here???

[satchenko]

OK...somthing is better than crickets but seriously, what NEW information do we have here???

+1!!!

[JG52Krupi]

Fantastic stuff... but I would like to know if we will see the dynamic weather in COD as well!!!?

[pupaxx]

Fantastic stuff... but I would like to know if we will see the dynamic weather in COD as well!!!?

no mate,
I suppose we will not see the DW before the sequel... point 14.

[6S.Manu]

Wow! I was missing these direct answers by the devs!

Luthier, I agree with your decision about the SpitfireMkIb.
Anyway I think that you should still take "unreliability" in account in the weapon model since one day, hopeful, some fighters will use mk108s and mk103s.

I don't understand the part about the structural limit: it's only about max speed and no G forces? If it's like that I fear that will have again dogfights defined constantly by 7G turns. It would be nice to have a fatigue model linked to the G forces.

Thanks guys!

My reaction to this update was something like this:
http://imaletyoufinish.com/pics/img/Hilarious-Baby-gif.gif

EDIT: please guys, can you avoid "BS" as short form for our friend BlackSix?... use something like "B6"...

[BlackSix]

Thanks BlackSix for sharing/translating the info, and also to Ilya for answering this questionnaire... no deadline for next patch? ;)

Regards.

No

Regarding the changes that will come with the sequel, will Cliffs of Dover benefit from them too, like IL-2 and Pacific Fighters?

I myself don't know yet

Thank you BS for asking this Question for me :) I'm gathering he is saying in response that "no aircraft wont tear themselves apart due to over g but they will have more non visual damage effect process".

Could you mention to Ilya that if it hasn't been thought of already but the Dev team of course, a good sound effect for engine over rev when exceeding structural limits would create a great atmosphere in the cockpit.

Thank you BS for the update.

Please repeat this suggestion in this topic
1C Team Questions and Requests (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28341)

[ATAG_Snapper]

I never look a gift horse in the mouth. Like everyone here, I've bought the game; they've got my money. We're not exactly in a strong negotiating position here to ask or demand anything. There is nothing to be gained by them to give any tentative date for anything. We've already ruined that avenue by our past behaviour on this forum.

I do appreciate the effort they're making to fix this sim to what it should've been from the get go. Hopefully this sets the stage for them to garner future purchases from us for expansions such as War over Moscow, Malta/North Africa/Sicily, etc.

[VO101_Tom]

Hello!
Today will be a small informational update.

Hi. Thank you the update and the answers!
S!

[furbs]

Thanks Blacksix for taking the time and effort to do this...your work is very much appreciated.

As for the info given...Meh...almost no new information, apart from telling us the stuff Luthier has been talking about for the last few months is now months away or not even on the list.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

OK...somthing is better than crickets but seriously, what NEW information do we have here???
Your kidding right?

[3ra_Luke]

I think this News?? Update?? is a new offense from Luthier (No offense BS, its not your fault).

I bought this broken game twice, in russian and in english languages, and I feel cheated every week, every friday when the next beta-beta-beta-patch doesnt arrive and Mr. Luthier is too busy for writing two lines explaining why. No screenshots, not a decent list of new features..NOTHING.

And now, the ultimate insult: Seems that they have "moved" their effords to a "sequel", not even having finished the first part. My God, even the radio messages are a useless mess!! Weather engine? Nooo, moved to the sequel. C´mon!!

Well, good luck with that one. I will not be cheated again. :evil:

[Chivas]

Update for Dec 9th....still working on the project, unfortunately its a slow process, if you require more frequent updates, please just change the date at the start of the post, as the rest still applies.

[MD_Titus]

cheers for the info, it's appreciated

Thank you BlackSix and Luthier. Trust is being rebuilt.

"and letting him speak to the community might perhaps cause him to lose sleep or run away and never look back."

Come on, we are not so nasty :-D

lies!

for anyone struggling with basic comprehension and having some kind of aneurysm as a result - sequel means add-on. think il2 forgotten battles, with pacific fighters, with aces expansion, with 1946. it's all the same game, just large chunks of content that are added on. it's not a separate game, it's not abandonment of cliffs of dover, it's additions to the core game which will benefit the core game as well as expanding the theatres available.

[addman]

Thanks for the update and especially for the effort by BS compiling it together, reading it through though, not much exciting or new for that matter. Still, thanks, it's better than silence.

Just one more thing:

13. Can you introduce a system of military ranks and awards?

Quote:
Yes, for the sequel.

14. Will you do further work on weather effects (rain, thunderstorm and so forth)?

Quote:
Yes, for the sequel.

Does this mean exclusively for the sequel or for both CloD and the sequel(s)?

[bw_wolverine]

Thank you, BlackSix.

I'm a little sad that it seems some of the bigger 'features' that were supposed to be part of CloD are now part of the sequel.

I'm glad they're still tuning and tweaking and making a graphics revision for CloD, though.

I guess what I'm saying is THIS time (with the sequel) I'm going to wait until the game is out and people have commented about it before I purchase. Especially if these features aren't going to be backward compatible with CloD.

I want to fly Spitfires and Hurricanes, g'damn it!

[MD_Titus]

I think this News?? Update?? is a new offense from Luthier (No offense BS, its not your fault).

I bought this broken game twice, in russian and in english languages, and I feel cheated every week, every friday when the next beta-beta-beta-patch doesnt arrive and Mr. Luthier is too busy for writing two lines explaining why. No screenshots, not a decent list of new features..NOTHING.

And now, the ultimate insult: Seems that they have "moved" their effords to a "sequel", not even having finished the first part. My God, even the radio messages are a useless mess!! Weather engine? Nooo, moved to the sequel. C´mon!!

Well, good luck with that one. I will not be cheated again. :evil:

you bought the game cheap, in russian, because you could not wait to get your hands on it. if you feel "cheated" then that's your own malfunction, to be brutally honest. see my clarification on sequel above.

[JG52Uther]

Forum members should be advised I have a low tolerance for back and forth pointless arguments in this thread, and will take action as necessary.

[Richie]

So do we know what the next theater will be? Russia or the Mediterranean?

[SEE]

And now, the ultimate insult: Seems that they have "moved" their effords to a "sequel", not even having finished the first part. My God, even the radio messages are a useless mess!! Weather engine? Nooo, moved to the sequel. C´mon!!


I hope you are wrong, I don't feel too optomistic that all the problems will be fixed as the sequel will naturally become the priority. Let's see what the next update is like regards fixing many of the current SP and MP problems. I don't expect to see everything fixed or improved but hopefully it will be in a better state when the sequel is announced.

[Vengeanze]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....what, game left beta state?....no?...ok........zzzzzzzzz


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KryZjY51N6M/S9Gy5BLFRjI/AAAAAAAACRk/U2ZJksWkLP8/s1600/Sleeping+at+computer.jpg



Appreciate the info effort Blacksix. Seems I was correct when I stated that CloD was a Battle Of Moscow beta - every effort has been shifted to the sequel a long time ago.
I shelfed the game and bought me a dslr while waiting for the sequel.
I so hope that CloD will make use of the updates in the sequel.

[Insuber]

So do we know what the next theater will be? Russia or the Mediterranean?

next to CloD, Battle of Moskow. Next to BoM, no info.

[JG53_Valantine]

Good to hear some news, although it's pretty much confirmed the oppinion I've held for a while now that efforts have been shifted to a sequel rather than fixing the current issues with CloD, the missing proper co-op mode and launcher freezes/crashes / memory leaks are the most fustrating for me.
I hope that any sequel they do release is akin to past IL2 experiences of being able to be "merged" otherwise the money spent on CloD I will personally feel is a little wasted.
I'll still probably get the sequel, but I'll not be rushing out on release day to get it after the constant disappointements with the current product. (oh and pelase don't get me wrong, I love CloD and the potential it has, I'd just like it patched and made stabler before talk of a sequel)
V

[Bonkin]

for anyone struggling with basic comprehension and having some kind of aneurysm as a result - sequel means add-on. think il2 forgotten battles, with pacific fighters, with aces expansion, with 1946. it's all the same game, just large chunks of content that are added on. it's not a separate game, it's not abandonment of cliffs of dover, it's additions to the core game which will benefit the core game as well as expanding the theatres available.

Sequel does not mean add-on. It could be an add-on but it's not certain. Certainly it's what I think we all hope for. For reference Cpt_Farrel asked the question and BS himself said he didn't know:

Regarding the changes that will come with the sequel, will Cliffs of Dover benefit from them too, like IL-2 and Pacific Fighters?

I myself don't know yet


Other than that I think its good to get the feedback but I'm extremely disappointed by the lack of dynamic weather, i.e. having to wait for the sequel.

[Force10]

I'm not happy hearing there is a sequel coming. I have shelved this thing waiting for a good patch since purchase, and now that there is a sequel coming it would seem there is a time set already when support will stop for this title. They only way I would pay for a sequel is if they have this thing patched 100% and is the game it was hyped by the devs to be.

[6S.Manu]

Good to hear some news, although it's pretty much confirmed the oppinion I've held for a while now that efforts have been shifted to a sequel rather than fixing the current issues with CloD, the missing proper co-op mode and launcher freezes/crashes / memory leaks are the most fustrating for me.
I hope that any sequel they do release is akin to past IL2 experiences of being able to be "merged" otherwise the money spent on CloD I will personally feel is a little wasted.
I'll still probably get the sequel, but I'll not be rushing out on release day to get it after the constant disappointements with the current product. (oh and pelase don't get me wrong, I love CloD and the potential it has, I'd just like it patched and made stabler before talk of a sequel)
V

IMO there is not a real effort shifting.

Simply the 3D modellers work in CloD is done; they are working on BoM planeset (they are not programmers!) while the other guys are still developing the core of the sim, who will be the same for CloD and BoM (being merged; it would be insane to release 2 different games).

[150GCT_Veltro]

14. Will you do further work on weather effects (rain, thunderstorm and so forth)?


Quote:
Yes, for the sequel.

Are you joking guys?

[Sven]

Did they had a lot rain and thunderstorms in that hot summer of 1940?

[Insuber]

If the sequel is merged, no problem. And logics and history point on that direction. But I'm afraid that patching CloD with a completely new graphic engine + other modifications could prove being more complex than it was for Il2 with Forgotten Battles. Ultimately we can see an entirely new game, standalone, just because of an incompatibility with the new gen engine. I give it a 50/50 chance. Wait and see ... :-D

[Dano]

What would you rather, development goes to the sequel and we get to buy it or not (it is after all, your choice) with additional features that were originally slated for COD or that funds dry up and we get maybe a couple more patches and development ceases?

I know it's not ideal and people have every right to be disappointed but at some point reality has to come into it doesn't it?

Anyway, thank you for the update BlackSix, much appreciated :)

[Dano]

This is no better than EA's fiasco with the BF3-PS3 promise, which they reneged on. This community isn't big enough, but I hope someone has the balls/money to take these guys to court over this.

What possible good do you actually see coming from such a course of action?

[merlin1]

Sorry guys.

This is not, what I am waithing for.

Update for me is only news about fixing a gameplay.(microstutters, FPS drops to 3 -20 is still there).
The game is stil unplayable. My prediction on the outcome of sophisticated versions for Christmas this year, unfortunately, will not be realized.

By the way, I announced this one year ago.


rgr.

[Buchon]

Thanks, I can´t wait to get the new piping, the physics work in detached components sound exciting :grin:

Some comments in this thread are Hilarius, the team are shifting to the sequel ?

What game you guys think is this ? Need For Speed :rolleyes:

[CaptainDoggles]

Wait a second. Some of these features are features we were promised for this game. Now they're being pushed back to the next game? Why should I buy that one?

I've already paid for an unfinished product, and now we're learning that features are being pushed back to the next game? We have to pay more to get what we should have had at release?

What guarantee is there that we won't see the same? Ohh sorry guys, dynamic weather will be pushed back to the 3rd sequel?

:evil:

[Insuber]

I suggest that negative people takes a breath, count till 100 and then refrain from posting their useless BS. Where BS is not our dear friend from Moskov.

[pupo162]

good udpate, bad news.

I feel great about news on the sequel, and that most likely will be one. But i feel cheated that a lot of stuff that should be in the release are being post poned to the sequel.

claiming that the lights is a vcisaul thing only also feels bad for me.


welll, we will see, waitin for next patch.

[Dano]

What guarantee is there that we won't see the same? Ohh sorry guys, dynamic weather will be pushed back to the 3rd sequel?

:evil:

None, why don't you wait and buy it after ascertaining what it contains?

[addman]

None, why don't you wait and buy it after ascertaining what it contains?

I will this time around, last time I had faith in MG from all their years of great work on IL-2. I wouldn't worry too much though, I'm sure it will be a Forgotten Battles type of deal, I mean, seriously they wouldn't try to sell us a brand new stand-alone game while dropping support for CLoD. The outrage would make the original CloD release pale in comparison.:)

[Dano]

Lol, true story! :D

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I suggest that negative people takes a breath, count till 100 and then refrain from posting their useless BS. Where BS is not our dear friend from Moskov.
+1

[CaptainDoggles]

None, why don't you wait and buy it after ascertaining what it contains?

I certainly will. I bought CloD in good faith, knowing that the game had problems but that they'd be eventually fixed.

How many more features will get pushed back to the sequel? I'm betting more than zero.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I will this time around, last time I had faith in MG from all their years of great work on IL-2. I wouldn't worry too much though, I'm sure it will be a Forgotten Battles type of deal, I mean, seriously they wouldn't try to sell us a brand new stand-alone game while dropping support for CLoD. The outrage would make the original CloD release pale in comparison.:)
Based on the 1C track record..

CoD planes, maps, etc will be included in the next release.

That is the formula that 1C used with IL-2 and it worked well, so I don't see why they would just toss all those planes and maps

[addman]

Based on the 1C track record..

CoD planes, maps, etc will be included in the next release.

That is the formula that 1C used with IL-2 and it worked well, so I don't see why they would just toss all those planes and maps

If that's the case then I'm a happy camper.:)

[ATAG_Snapper]

I suggest that negative people takes a breath, count till 100 and then refrain from posting their useless BS. Where BS is not our dear friend from Moskov.

+2

[MD_Titus]

if battle of moscow is a standalone game rather than an add on, where you can't play online and go from the channel to the steppes with a map switch, then i will eat a hand full of bhut jolokias and post pictures of my weeping.

[SIDWULF]

Ilya seems like a good guy with a great personality. The negativity is incredible here. IL2 Cliffs of Dover is visually and technically excellent. And the problems you speak of are far from deal breakers. I think people spend to much time posting here and not enough acctually playing the game to have an idea about what they are talking about.

[philip.ed]

Based on the 1C track record..

CoD planes, maps, etc will be included in the next release.

That is the formula that 1C used with IL-2 and it worked well, so I don't see why they would just toss all those planes and maps


Aye, but will support for the BoB aspect continue? As it stands, it's arguably the most inferior off-line representation of Battle of Britain on the market (in terms of air-combat-simulation). There is nothing that immerses you in the battle. It's not a simulation; it's a technical representation. I seriously hope this game manifests (offline) into something at least as immersive as BoB2.

[phoenix1963]

Get a grip guys!

If you look in the Parts folder you'll see Bob and Core.

So for an UNMERGED sequel you'll see Core and Moskva or somesuch.
For a merged install you'll see Core, Bob & Moskva.

So the Core parts of the game will be updated.

QED

56RAF_phoenix

[Richie]

Everyone is clear what sequels are right. Not new games but addons to the existing game to make it fuller. Like Forgotten Battles got. About five times it's original size.

[machoo]

Pretty much what I got out of this is " Nothing much new will come out of CLOD , you will need to buy the sequel to have more features"

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Aye, but will support for the BoB aspect continue?
That depeonds on your definition of 'support'

If your definition of support is 'reasonable' and means you will get all the new features that BS mentioned, than the answer is yes. Assming 1C does what they have allways done (read track record) and include all the planes, maps, etc from thier previous version into their next version (read sqeual)

If your definition of support is 'unreasonable' and means you expect every plane, boat, train, car, wagon, ice cream stand that was aval in the real world during the summer of BoB.. Than the answer is most likly no

As it stands, it's arguably the most inferior off-line representation of Battle of Britain on the market (in terms of air-combat-simulation).
Disagree 100%

There is nothing that immerses you in the battle.
Disagree 100%

Well.. retract that.. maybe true for you, but surly not for all

It's not a simulation; it's a technical representation.
What?

I seriously hope this game manifests (offline) into something at least as immersive as BoB2.
See above

[Krt_Bong]

I still find it amusing to see people get indignant about how their game is unplayable, when their Sig describes a rig better than mine and make assumptions on what the developers are doing based on a few short sentences. I have no doubt that they are doing the best they can, and saying very little on purpose. The Peanut Gallery is a vicious mob.
my game is very playable...

[Insuber]

Pretty much what I got out of this is " Nothing much new will come out of CLOD , you will need to buy the sequel to have more features"

He didn't say that. Stop pessimism and negativity, nothing good comes from that.

[Ctrl E]

Reading these answers I would very much doubt the Moscow game will be compatible with CloD. Sounds like the have effectively dumped CloD and moved on to building an entirely new engine, which I doubt would work with CloDs messy code.

Sorry chaps.

[addman]

LOL! I thought that a "technical representation" was the definition of a simulation.:)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

my game is very playable...
As is mine and many Many MANY more

I think the reason it seems like there are so many having problems here is simple human nature

People who have problems go looking for answers.. Which in turn brings them here

People who are having no problems are off enjoying the game.. Which in turn may or may not bring them here

Thus the amout of people with problems gets skeued/filtered to make it seem worse than it really is

[jimbop]

Thanks. Glad that work is continuing and looking forward to patch and expansion.

[Baron]

Thanks for the update and especially for the effort by BS compiling it together, reading it through though, not much exciting or new for that matter. Still, thanks, it's better than silence.

Just one more thing:

13. Can you introduce a system of military ranks and awards?

Quote:
Yes, for the sequel.

14. Will you do further work on weather effects (rain, thunderstorm and so forth)?

Quote:
Yes, for the sequel.

Does this mean exclusively for the sequel or for both CloD and the sequel(s)?



Note the "further work", as in more work.

Dynamic weather is allredy in the game and the supposedly 50% increase in performance makes it possible for more players to enjoy user made campaigns and missions with DW in it.

Think he means it wont be incorporated in standard missions that allredy exists/ making it sellecteble in the menu pre mission.

[badfinger]

I'm happy with this update, because it gives me the feeling that the Devs really are listening and care. Blacksix seems open and honest in what he tells us. No sugar coating or spin, we get the good with the bad.

I'm a little disappointed that some features won't come until the sequel, but I can handle it. I don't understand what the "Battle of Moscow" would be about, though. The Germans never got to Moscow. Maybe more info is required, there.

Overall, my version of CoD is working, and I am having a good time. As improvements are made, my "well factor" will undoubtedly rise.

binky9

[Insuber]

Binky9, just google "Battle of Moscow", you will read about the more bloody battle of human history, maybe second only to Stalingrad.

[Jugdriver]

I don't understand what the "Battle of Moscow" would be about, though. The Germans never got to Moscow. Maybe more info is required, there.



They got close.

JD
AKA_MattE

[jimbop]

Ilya seems like a good guy with a great personality. The negativity is incredible here. IL2 Cliffs of Dover is visually and technically excellent. And the problems you speak of are far from deal breakers. I think people spend to much time posting here and not enough acctually playing the game to have an idea about what they are talking about.

+1.

[smink1701]

Your kidding right?

No. What's the big NEWS flash...no cannons on the Spit. The big news on the big issues are "We're working on stuff and we don't know when they will be done." Oh, really. The update from Luthier on October 17 had much more info. I was hoping for an UPDATE. Some new SUBSTANTIAL info. Not a rehash. :grin:

[SIDWULF]

+1.

While i am usually postive about this game, I do have to agree on a few things, its really a mixed bag here. Big furballs kill everyones frame rates it seems and of course the stutters over land and strange framerate dips when theres smoke and when your taking off. Other then these instances the framerate is steady and playable. So yes the preformance is quite bad at times and i can see the frustration with it. On top of the graphical glitches and launcher crashes and the bizzare crash physics are a turn off. But they say the patch will cover all of this...so well Great!

The game does seem a little unfinished but i still am impressed by it in a technical sense, damage modeling, accuracy, clickable cockpits and controls, graphics, flight model, land detail, sound engine.

[IamNotDavid]

No. What's the big NEWS flash...no cannons on the Spit. The big news on the big issues are "We're working on stuff and we don't know when they will be done." Oh, really. The update from Luthier on October 17 had much more info. I was hoping for an UPDATE. Some new SUBSTANTIAL info. Not a rehash. :grin:

I'll try to explain to you what is going on here. No matter what they do there is going to be complaining. If they tell you what they're fixing people will complain that they're fixing the wrong thing. God help them if they say they're going to fix something and it isn't fixed. If they don't update you then there is complaining. They get the least amount of complaining if they pretend to update you, but really just say "we're still working on it", so that's what they did. You're welcome.

[F19_Klunk]

Do I interpret the answers correctly that the advertized patch aiming to fix many gfx problems and and was due in a few weeks, now is .. cancelled? or at least postponed to this "sequel"?

[Krt_Bong]

As is mine and many Many MANY more

I think the reason it seems like there are so many having problems here is simple human nature

People who have problems go looking for answers.. Which in turn brings them here

People who are having no problems are off enjoying the game.. Which in turn may or may not bring them here

Thus the amout of people with problems gets skeued/filtered to make it seem worse than it really is
And that is a valid argument, and not to say there aren't some problems because there are but the point is that a few words here or there doesn't immediately lead to the conclusion that many make in criticizing the developers for what they have actually said..

[ACE-OF-ACES]

No. What's the big NEWS flash...no cannons on the Spit. The big news on the big issues are "We're working on stuff and we don't know when they will be done." Oh, really. The update from Luthier on October 17 had much more info. I was hoping for an UPDATE. Some new SUBSTANTIAL info. Not a rehash. :grin:
Jezzzz

And they wonder why 1C does not post updates every week

[ACE-OF-ACES]

And that is a valid argument, and not to say there aren't some problems because there are but the point is that a few words here or there doesn't immediately lead to the conclusion that many make in criticizing the developers for what they have actually said..Agreed 100%

[5./JG27.Farber]

How come no one has asked the most important question for multiplayer?! There is supposedly already a fix for the launcher crash...


When will the crash to desktop stop?

Can we have a quick fix?!?

[badfinger]

Binky9, just google "Battle of Moscow", you will read about the more bloody battle of human history, maybe second only to Stalingrad.

OK, but this was a land battle, although I admit,with air support.

My point was that CoD is a flight sim. I guess the sequel will be more of a stand-alone sim with tanks, etc., rather than an add-on to CoD. Not so much an IL-2 CoD/Battle of Moscow, as IL-2 Battle of Moscow. I was wondering what those tanks in the CoD previews were for.

Does the CoD "Battle of France" campaign include land battles, or is it just the air part of the battle?

binky9

[Insuber]

How come no one has asked the most important question for multiplayer?! There is supposedly already a fix for the launcher crash...


When will the crash to desktop stop?

Can we have a quick fix?!?

No quick fix. As Luthier has answered before: the launcher crash is due to some bad code of the gfx engine. The new gfx engine will solve that issue.

[Fall_Pink?]

Please also have them look at the change formation commands. Line astern is executed within a second while forming back to finger four takes a very long time. Doesn't seem right to me.

Regards,
FP

[smink1701]

I'll try to explain to you what is going on here. No matter what they do there is going to be complaining. If they tell you what they're fixing people will complain that they're fixing the wrong thing. God help them if they say they're going to fix something and it isn't fixed. If they don't update you then there is complaining. They get the least amount of complaining if they pretend to update you, but really just say "we're still working on it", so that's what they did. You're welcome.

Here's what they should have said...

There is nothing new to report. What we thought in October was near completion is still weeks, if not months away because all the talented programmers left the company long ago. And the few people that are left don't really know what they are doing and are desperately trying to learn as they go. Thanks again for buying CloD and we hope you will buy Storm of Moscow too.

Salute!
:grin:

[6BL Bird-Dog]

Many thanks for the Up-Date Black Six and welcome.
Please relay thanks to the Ilya and the team for the information and especialy that the graphics are being completely redone which I belive is the one of the most important issues .
;)

[IamNotDavid]

Here's what they should have said...

There is nothing new to report. What we thought in October was near completion is still weeks, if not months away because all the talented programmers left the company long ago. And the few people that are left don't really know what they are doing and are desperately trying to learn as they go. Thanks again for buying CloD and we hope you will buy Storm of Moscow too.

Salute!
:grin:

The goal is less whining, not more.

[philip.ed]

That depeonds on your definition of 'support'

If your definition of support is 'reasonable' and means you will get all the new features that BS mentioned, than the answer is yes. Assming 1C does what they have allways done (read track record) and include all the planes, maps, etc from thier previous version into their next version (read sqeual)

If your definition of support is 'unreasonable' and means you expect every plane, boat, train, car, wagon, ice cream stand that was aval in the real world during the summer of BoB.. Than the answer is most likly no


Disagree 100%


Disagree 100%

Well.. retract that.. maybe true for you, but surly not for all


What?


See above

I'm talking OVERALL simulation here. CloD is technically amazing in many departments; but it doesn't feel like the BoB. Maybe it's a British thing, but there is nothing in the off-line department to immerse you in the day-to-day routine that was the BoB. BoB2 does this perfectly, and even when you remove the dynamic campaign that BoB2 has, the AI and the missions all equate to an experience which is far more immersive. This is just one of the reasons why I hope that CloD is not just a small stepping stone in the team's road of expansion. It would be sad for them to neglect the areas of CloD which they have failed to cover/improve/develop (be it graphical or relative to gameplay).

[smink1701]

I'm talking OVERALL simulation here. CloD is technically amazing in many departments; but it doesn't feel like the BoB. Maybe it's a British thing, but there is nothing in the off-line department to immerse you in the day-to-day routine that was the BoB. BoB2 does this perfectly, and even when you remove the dynamic campaign that BoB2 has, the AI and the missions all equate to an experience which is far more immersive. This is just one of the reasons why I hope that CloD is not just a small stepping stone in the team's road of expansion. It would be sad for them to neglect the areas of CloD which they have failed to cover/improve/develop (be it graphical or relative to gameplay).

1++ If there was a way to get IL2's functionality, BOB2's immersion and CLoD's graphics.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The goal is less whining, not more.+1

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I'm talking OVERALL simulation here.
I know.. and my responce to you on each of your statments took that into account

[Skoshi Tiger]

.....
Luthier should have a feel at this point on timing. For those that work in any business, you can always give a boss or customer an idea of when something is going to be delivered. Give us a tentative date so we are all on the same page in terms of expectations.

Em?

: The process very difficult and slow, and takes much more time than expected.


Smink are you are out of touch with the community?

If Luthier post a release date for the patch/upgrade based on his "feel" it will be taken as a contractual obligation and he will be pillaried if the date is not met and be called a "Liar".

[Skoshi Tiger]

if battle of moscow is a standalone game rather than an add on, where you can't play online and go from the channel to the steppes with a map switch, then i will eat a hand full of bhut jolokias and post pictures of my weeping.

Good Grief! I would not want to see that!

Based upon past addons and updates even if it is an merged game you will still have seperate maps!






[Edit] I changed my post as I miss-read the OP.

[5./JG27.Farber]

No quick fix. As Luthier has answered before: the launcher crash is due to some bad code of the gfx engine. The new gfx engine will solve that issue.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27848

It was here that it was stated as fixed but "not ready for the world".^

It can't be worse than what we already have. Its THE major issue right now for online players!



As for "Battle for Moscow" I suppose we are talking Operation Barbarossa. I also suppose fighting will concentrate around the lynch pin of Smolensk with the Luftwaffe facing off against the GIAP of the VVS. The G stands for Guard - meaning they are elite, they were the best Russian pilots in the best available aircraft, proberbly YAK's and maybe some MIGG's.... So not really just more land units but actually a very interesting scenaireo. Also wasn't moving land war what what multiplayer players were asking for?!


We can have all the bells and whistles you want but with out the basic online stability its a single player game. I am not alone on this issue and I am sure some more from MP will add to this soon.

[Redroach]

13. Can you introduce a system of military ranks and awards?


14. Will you do further work on weather effects (rain, thunderstorm and so forth)?


You can hold your breath on those. If it won't be in the game, it won't be in the sequel... at least not for me.

[CaptainDoggles]

As for "Battle for Moscow" I suppose we are talking Operation Barbarossa. I also suppose fighting will concentrate around the lynch pin of Smolensk with the Luftwaffe facing off against the GIAP of the SVV. The G stands for Guard - meaning they are elite, they were the best Russian pilots in the best available aircraft, proberbly YAK's and maybe some MIGG's.... So not really just more land units but actually a very interesting scenaireo. Also wasn't moving land war what what multiplayer players were asking for?!

For the record, or for anyone interested, it's VVS which comes from the Russian Военно-Воздушные Силы which is transliterated to Voenno-Voszdushnye Sily.

Soviet fighter regiments were given the label IAP, from Истребителныий Авиационный Полк or Istrebitelnyi Aviatsionnyi Polk. Regiments distinguishing themselves in combat through great valor or success were given a new designation as a "Guards" regiment, and labelled GIAP/GvIAP from Гвардеский Истребительный Авиационныи Полк or Gvardeski Istrebitelnyi Aviatsionnyi Polk. Being designated a Guards regiment was a very high honour indeed.

Apologies to Russian members about my spelling; my Russian isn't great.

[CardboardSword]

I for one will be seriously disappointed if the two are not merged installs, but I'll admit, I'll buy it anyway. One of the first things I thought when I booted up CloD was oh my God, imagine how much fun this will be once more planes are available (I'm not much of a Spit guy)! With every plane feeling so different I'm looking forward to seeing how new additions will behave. I quite like the Russian crates (especially the mig-3, although I haven't the foggiest clue why haha), and I would love to get my hands on a centerline 20mm for the 109 without fussing with all that convergance mess. ;)

Having said that though, I think it's absolutely terrible both in a business sense and in a customer service sense to not give CloD all the features that were promised. If it's simply a matter of a patch coming out for CloD at the same time BoM is released then that's all fine and dandy, but if those who choose not to buy the sequel/add-on/whatever you want to be anal about calling it can't get all the features that were supposed to be in the game in the first place, well that's just not right and I expect betetr from a team that relies so heavily on its relationship with its customers.

[Insuber]

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27848

It was here that it was stated as fixed but "not ready for the world".^

It can't be worse than what we already have. Its THE major issue right now for online players!



As for "Battle for Moscow" I suppose we are talking Operation Barbarossa. I also suppose fighting will concentrate around the lynch pin of Smolensk with the Luftwaffe facing off against the GIAP of the SVV. The G stands for Guard - meaning they are elite, they were the best Russian pilots in the best available aircraft, proberbly YAK's and maybe some MIGG's.... So not really just more land units but actually a very interesting scenaireo. Also wasn't moving land war what what multiplayer players were asking for?!


We can have all the bells and whistles you want but with out the basic online stability its a single player game. I am not online on this issue and I am sure some more from MP will add to this soon.
As far as the launcher crash you misunderstood Luthier's answer, he said what I said. The "overall feature" is the new gfx engine in which the launcher.exe bug is "simply not present". As far as the Battle of Moscow, it was code named Operation Typhoon by the German army. It was concentrated in the Moscow district, West from Moscow. Barbarossa was the blitz invasion of Russia, few months before.

cheers,
Insuber

[Dano]

Hopefully the same thing that happened with EA, forced to actually give the product they promised.

There's a world of difference in forcing EA to give an already complete product to forcing 1C to finish all that was slated for Cliffs of Dover.

[5./JG27.Farber]

For the record, it's VVS which comes from the Russian Военно-Воздушные Силы which transliterated is Voenno-Voszdushnye Sily

Yea sorry I was typing from memory and I dont care much for the Russians :-P

As far as the launcher crash you misunderstood Luthier's answer, he said what I said. The "overall feature" is the new gfx engine in which the launcher.exe bug is "simply not present".

However it is fixed.... I just see everyone pushing for dynamic weather and FM's/DM's... If we cant multiplay for more than 30 mins or so we might as well not play at all...


As far as the Battle of Moscow, it was code named Operation Typhoon by the German army. It was concentrated in the Moscow district, West from Moscow. Barbarossa was the blitz invasion of Russia, few months before.

cheers,
Insuber

Thats a shame, I just thought as there was no battle for Moscow because the German advance fell 30km(?) short it would really be about the advance before hand... A Smolensk map would have made a great campaign map... Bf109 vs Yak 1's, I16's and Miggs...

[flyingblind]

Thanks for the update. I guess the positive people will see it as positive and vice versa for the negative. Oh well.

This bit made me laugh:

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.

An excellent answer. Nearly wet myself.

[Dano]

But there are laws at least in my country about bait and switch. Asking someone to pay for a different product which contains the something they advertised in a current product, is deceptive and illegal. Wonder if the maybe 35 guys that post regularly in this forum would count as "class-action" or not, lol.

What exactly is missing that was promised? Actually promised and not just discussed. And again, what possible good do you actually see it doing other than forcing the premature end of sims from Luthier and 1C or are you actually that short sighted that you think they have a fully working sim at the office just waiting for somebody to take legal action against them before release?

[Dano]

Which of those do we not have?

I'm not 'bashing' anyone, just curious as to what good you actually think it would do to create a further financial burden on a company that is in a niche market and has obviously already had issues.

[klem]

Well BlackSix, if you're still reading posts this far down the thread you'll have a taste of what Luthier had to put up with. Guys are speculating, some are complaining and then they begin to argue about their speculations and complaints as thought they are fact. Then they blame 1C for the speculations and fights they have created themselves. Welcome to the banana forum.

Thank you for the information, it is what it is. It doesn't meet all our hopes but two direct questions may answer many speculations and complaints.

You say you don't know if the next release will be "compatible with CoD". A more direct question which I don't think people have asked clearly is:

"Will it be possible for BoM to be merged with CoD?" (Like we did in IL-2).

"If so, will all the new core improvements work for CoD maps and aircraft?"

[xHeadbanDx]

Yaaa for updates !!!! :):) hope the squeal adds Americana and Russian planes.

[Havoc04]

Ilya seems like a good guy with a great personality. The negativity is incredible here. IL2 Cliffs of Dover is visually and technically excellent. And the problems you speak of are far from deal breakers. I think people spend to much time posting here and not enough acctually playing the game to have an idea about what they are talking about.

I noticed sir you didn't add sound wise, VERY clever.. for with the radio broken not being able to do/give radio commands to wing men and the abhorrent sounds that came with the game is a deal breaker.
Hmmm my wingmen is badly damaged ill send him home......Ooops no i cant, you guess the reason why? I prefer the SP side i dont play MP and the radio thing IS a DEAL BREAKER for me pure and simple. We all have opinions and that is mine :)

But i thank the OP for his post. news is better than no news and i hope he keeps it up.

Regards

[ACE-OF-ACES]

But there are laws at least in my country about bait and switch. Asking someone to pay for a different product which contains the something they advertised in a current product, is deceptive and illegal. Wonder if the maybe 35 guys that post regularly in this forum would count as "class-action" or not, lol.
First of all you would have to have a case..

Which there isn't, since CoD contains everything that is advertised

And by advertised I mean everything listed in hard cover adds, official Internet sites (1C/UBI), and the side of the box..

And for those who may be a little confused.. Something Oleg talked about doing two or three years ago in an online interview does NOT count as advertisement official or otherwise.

Perfect example being 'dynamic weather' Oleg said in an interview a good year to year and a half before CoD was release that CoD would have dynamic weather. Prior to release 1C said they were not able to get dynamic weather in. And just to be crystal clear, 1C nor UBI stated dynamic weather was included in CoD

Thus no case can be made, thus no class action lawsuit

Its that simple

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Which of those do we not have?
Dano..

Don't bother.. They will never answer..

Why?

Because any attempt at providing an answer will only prove the fact that there is nothing missing that was advertised.

And don't even bother to try and understand why they would want to promote such a myth.. You probably wouldn't want to know anyway, surly some Freudian cigar thingie! ;)

All you can hope for is to put out the true information in the hopes that those new comers and old who are reading this thread will realize that they never provided an answer

At which point they will realize 1C did not rip them off and thus not get upset over a myth

Having people pissed off over a myth does not do them or the progress of this sim any good

So just keep the truth out there in opostion to the myths..

Just don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the myth makers! ;)

[Chivas]

From Steam's advertisement, the original 1c one is full of more promises, but take a look at which of these features you have right now. Go look for Oleg's posts dating from way back, you'll see small, but important lines, telling us what is for this installment.


http://store.steampowered.com/app/63950/


You're bashing at the wrong guy, I'm one that normally opens people to the stuff that is right here. But hearing that they are dropping work on giving us the goods, in order to work on something we're going to have to pay for is just wrong.

Its highly unlikely that you will have to pay for the Battle for Moscow to get any new features like dynamic weather. It would probably be added as a patch to COD, although most people will probably buy Battle for Moscow and any new features will be added to COD, when they do a merged install. Personally I don't have that much interest in the Eastern front but will quite happily buy it to support further theaters, like the Med.

[salmo]

Thankyou for the update BlackSix. Your efforts are much appreciated.

However, I have to say that the response to requests for documentation on the FMB, triggers, switches & scripting is unsatisfactory. It's been 9+ months since the game was released with no (zero, nada, zip, nil) fmb documetation & to recieve the response " People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose." simply beggers belief :(

IMO, the game will not mature until the community can get actively involved in enhancing the game, for this they need documentation & the SDK's. That way, the community can develop certain game enhancements while the Dev's continue to improve the core of the game.

I just looked at the on-line COD server list , which makes very disappointing viewing. It does not bode well for the game's future. Just 12 on-line game servers, 11 of them empty & one with just 10 players only on a weekend (Friday night/Saturday). :(:(

[Chivas]

A few of the things we were told we were going to have (without digging up all the old threads): Dynamic weather, playable AA guns, a fuller map of England (Northern section), South France, Antwerp (assuming all of Belgium here, but can't remember if all was promised or just to the Antwerp area), SDK.

If like Chivas hints, they give those to us free at the same time as BoM is released, for CoD, then they're fulfilling their promise. If not, that's bait and switch for more money.

You might even get many of those features before Battle of Moscow because they will probably use COD to beta test them. There were never any promises about the size of the map., or most everything else for that matter. All they did was keep us informed over the years on the features they were trying to build into COD. Some features even those we don't even know about yet will also be delayed until the sim is further optimized or next generation systems are powerfull enough to handle them with palyable framerates.

[jimbop]

Yes, got to say that I don't understand why the dev team isn't making it easier for the community to improve the game with them. The servers at the moment are depressing as salvo says.

[akmarine]

While it's sad to see some of the features get pushed on to the sequel, I think some of the problems may have been eliminated by looking before you leap.

Is dynamic weather really putting a damper on your fun? I can understand the FPS/memory leak issues but they are working on a patch for the current game in that regard.

I bought this game last month and already logged 63 hours on it. If you did the math, I spent roughly $2.62 per hour of fun. Thats cheaper than a coffee in my eyes. To me that=worth my money. I can understand everyone wants the bells and whistles but once this game's memory leaks/FPS issues are fixed you should be happy with what you have.

[Chivas]

Thankyou for the update BlackSix. Your efforts are much appreciated.

However, I have to say that the response to requests for documentation on the FMB, triggers, switches & scripting is unsatisfactory. It's been 9+ months since the game was released with no (zero, nada, zip, nil) fmb documetation & to recieve the response " People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose." simply beggers belief :(

IMO, the game will not mature until the community can get actively involved in enhancing the game, for this they need documentation & the SDK's. That way, the community can develop certain game enhancements while the Dev's continue to improve the core of the game.

I just looked at the on-line COD server list , whch makes very disappointing viewing. It does not bode well for the game's future. Just 12 on-line game servers, 11 of them empty & one with just 10 players only on a weekend (Friday night/Saturday). :(:(

All this is a function of the sim being unfinished. When the sim is finished then they can produce the documentation. You can't document something until your sure how it will end up. Same with On-line play, although its very playable online for people with decent clean systems, its not for othere with weaker systems. The sim still needs optimization. Off-line the sim isn't very good for anything but furballs. When the sim is finished and documentation complete, it will take off, until then a considerable amount of patience is required.

Yes we can throw the development under the bus for the constant unrelenting delays, but then what. (zero, nada, zip, nil) for the next ten, twenty years until someone else trys to build something this complicated. The almost limitless money pit of Microsoft along with everyone else gave up long ago.

[csThor]

It's rather telling ... I mean rewriting the gfx engine and the sound engine (and perhaps the physics engine, too?) means that they're essentially doing a new engine from scratch. So apparently something has gone thoroughly FUBAR during development of the current/previous one. Not to mention that there was a change in management, a whole new bunch of team members and an increase of employees to boot.

It is, indeed, not satisfactory that key features are missing - a real campaign system, the promised weather stuff, documentation ... But then rewriting a game engine is never easy and quick. Right now we've paid for an unfinished game engine ... and MG will have to deliver quite a lot to regain the lost faith of the customers with the sequel. I don't expect anything ground-breaking until the new title. :(

[kestrel79]

Guys relax,

This is most likely just going to be like the IL2 series with sequels (updates) being able to be merged into the Cliffs of Dover install, just how Pacific Fighters worked.

[fireflyerz]

Yawwwnnn , aw gawd anyone got any good news.:rolleyes:

[BPickles]

If theres even a hint that to get the features i was supposed to get when i paid for clod, i have to pay again because they only get added in BoM, 1C can go suck it. That would be a blatent held to ransom over features already paid for.
Glad to see some still have confidence that it wouldnt be done like that though. Me, im not sure what to expect.

[robtek]

If theres even a hint that to get the features i was supposed to get when i paid for clod, i have to pay again because they only get added in BoM, 1C can go suck it. That would be a blatent held to ransom over features already paid for.
Glad to see some still have confidence that it wouldnt be done like that though. Me, im not sure what to expect.

It seems that you don't understand.

You've got everything what was printed on the box, though not faultless.

Missing features, which will not be fixed for the new il2, exist only in your imagination.

[F19_Klunk]

I am a bit surprised at comments such as "you have gotten all that is listed on the box so what are you complaining about"?

I am not complaining, it's just that I bought a product in a box but it got badly treated in the mail and quite many parts are broken and I would like them to be fixed/replaced within a reasonable time so that I may enjoy the product I bought. That is not complaining... that is just beeing a concerned consumer/customer.

[bongodriver]

if it got broken in the mail then it's the postmans fault, is it impossible for you to wait just like the rest of us while they fix the broken product?

[esmiol]

the most ridiculous is the fact that if you read the response...tyou have no info. latere...no now...for sequel... i think if the list of question was come back blank...it was the same.

Luthier need a verry good teaching of communication.

and what about the patch? it coming soon? in one week? one month? don't care the time but info...

i don't understand that here...in the english official forum (english is universal language) no info...... only for russian.... then they just have to sell BOB in russia and wait to sell us!!!!

we give our money then now we are unusefull?!

sorry to be so aggressive but more time is passing and more i'm out of patience with Luthier.

the only positive thing here...is the good work of black six who try to help us to get info....

[Trumper]

I hope that BoB/Clod will be fixed.What about us in the UK that WANTED to fly over our own land for once.Personally i have little interest as such in the battle for Moscow or the Pacific.

[repzyree]

hurray, Christmas came early this year. thx for the update.

[Viking]

Many, many I, me and myself people in this forum!
Thank you 1c, Luthier et conc for posting and working.

Viking

[philip.ed]

It seems that you don't understand.

You've got everything what was printed on the box, though not faultless.

Missing features, which will not be fixed for the new il2, exist only in your imagination.

This seems like some kind of Animal Farm affair. In a few months we'll be told that Oleg was a mythical person, whose soul motive was to disrupt the progress of the sim. Any information posted by said person was just false. :rolleyes:

Obviously I'm joking, but you forcing people to believe your take on the game is ridiculous.

The truth is this: a lot of people, on this forum, bought the game with Oleg's 'promises' ringing in their ears. They seemed more tangible than a game that was as bare as the inital release. It didn't seem credible that a game in development for that length of time would be in the state it was. Yes, we got what was on the box, but we should have been told that a) to run the game like the preview videos, it would have to be run at 1/8 speed and sped up, and b) that the features Oleg had listed, posted videos of, shown screenshots of, were not to be included in the inital release.

[superman]

Oleg was very very specific about not promising anything as I remember.


But I too got my expectations very high.


Like so many things in life, if you don't match your expectations with real world you will have an endless streak of disappointments top deal with.


But if it's so horrible why not cur your losses at the 50$ or so that you spent. walk away and give the money to the competion instead.

(Ok you wont get a refund, but then again the money some people spent on beer consumed in front of a computer screen whining about CoD will not be refunded either.)


Or better still:

put out your own, much better, product on the market and steal their source of income

That would show them :-)

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

[QUOTE=philip.ed;368831]This seems like some kind of Animal Farm affair. In a few months we'll be told that Oleg was a mythical person, whose soul motive was to disrupt the progress of the sim. Any information posted by said person was just false. :rolleyes:

He he superb!this is priceless Phil:)

[lane]

<snip>... it will completely shift the balance...</snip>
Thanks: hmm, adjusting the aircraft characteristics for game play - that explains the FUBAR RAF aircraft FMs! (e.g. performance obtained with 100 octane fuel not modeled on the core RAF aircraft)

Best wishes & better luck with your Battle of Moscow "sim"!

[swiss]

If the sequel is merged, no problem. And logics and history point on that direction. But I'm afraid that patching CloD with a completely new graphic engine + other modifications could prove being more complex than it was for Il2 with Forgotten Battles. Ultimately we can see an entirely new game, standalone, just because of an incompatibility with the new gen engine. I give it a 50/50 chance. Wait and see ... :-D

I'd rather have a working game than a compatible one.
If the new one works you can throw away Clod and wait for a channel map, which would make you end up with the same result.

[kendo65]

Do I interpret the answers correctly that the advertized patch aiming to fix many gfx problems and and was due in a few weeks, now is .. cancelled? or at least postponed to this "sequel"?

No, the patch will be released as soon as they get it all working.

Also, concerning the sequel, I'm CERTAIN that Luthier mentioned in a response months ago that it would work both as a standalone game OR a merged install for those already running COD. (with the implicit conclusion that, as before in the il-2 series, newly developed or unlocked elements of the game engine would be usable in both titles)

[kendo65]

It seems that you don't understand.

You've got everything what was printed on the box, though not faultless.

Missing features, which will not be fixed for the new il2, exist only in your imagination.

The problem with this pov is that there really isn't space for much information on the box. :) Most of the people on this forum will have been following closely the regular dev weekly updates over the preceding year+ which went into great detail about exactly the features that would be in the game (or were expected to be in the game)

It is just being really disingenuous for some people to insist that everything that was expected was included at release. I bet even Luthier would not attempt to take that position. I really don't know why certain folks here have such sensitivity to any implied criticism of the game that they are reduced to such distortions.

For the record, before Aces or someone else jumps in with the usual response, I'm not one of the compulsive knockers of this game (ask someone like Tree about my defense of the game in the run-up to release). I just can't have the woolly dishonesty and distortions of those who refuse to recognise any problems.

[Osprey]

if battle of moscow is a standalone game rather than an add on, where you can't play online and go from the channel to the steppes with a map switch, then i will eat a hand full of bhut jolokias and post pictures of my weeping.

Because it's you Titus, I'm adding this to my sig :D

:twisted:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Oleg was very very specific about not promising anything as I remember.


But I too got my expectations very high.


Like so many things in life, if you don't match your expectations with real world you will have an endless streak of disappointments top deal with.


But if it's so horrible why not cur your losses at the 50$ or so that you spent. walk away and give the money to the competion instead.

(Ok you wont get a refund, but then again the money some people spent on beer consumed in front of a computer screen whining about CoD will not be refunded either.)


Or better still:

put out your own, much better, product on the market and steal their source of income

That would show them :-)+1

[F19_Klunk]

if it got broken in the mail then it's the postmans fault, is it impossible for you to wait just like the rest of us while they fix the broken product?

it was an analogy....

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The problem with this pov is that there really isn't space for much information on the box. :)
What with all the font options aval these days I don't see listing 'dynamic weather' on the box being an issue.. Had it been included

And lets not forget the advertisements posted at official 1C/UBI web site, where space is not an issue, take note there that in both cases we received everything that was advertised.

Most of the people on this forum will have been following closely the regular dev weekly updates over the preceding year+ which went into great detail about exactly the features that would be in the game (or were expected to be in the game)
The problem with this pov is that it is a loose loose situation for game makers..

1) If a game maker does an interview listing all the things their new graphics engine is capable of two years prior to the release of the game, and only manages to provide 8 of the 10 things they talked about come day of release, there is always going to be a vocal group who's unrealistic expectations expected 11 out of the 10 things mentioned, and thus feel let down or whose cheated.

2) If a game maker does and interview and does not say anything about what their new graphics engine is capable of two years prior to release of the game, there is always going to be a vocal group who will feel let down or whose yet cheated by not getting any details

So poor 1C.. Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't

It is just being really disingenuous for some people to insist that everything that was expected was included at release. I bet even Luthier would not attempt to take that position.
Agreed 100%

Just to be crystal, I think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was ever mentioned over the past six years of CoD development to make its way into the game, but I don't think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was advertised on the box and official web site to be included at release. Problem is a lot of people can not distinguish between the two

I really don't know why certain folks here have such sensitivity to any implied criticism of the game that they are reduced to such distortions.
The worst part about these 'myths' is that they cloud the real issues with the game. There are plenty of problems with CoD for people to be disappointed with, tossing in myths for people to get more upset about does no one any good.

For the record, before Aces or someone else jumps in with the usual response, I'm not one of the compulsive knockers of this game (ask someone like Tree about my defense of the game in the run-up to release). I just can't have the woolly dishonesty and distortions of those who refuse to recognize any problems.
Agreed 100%

Those people who can not recognize the real problems from the myth problems are a big problem IMHO. They put so much att and effort into the myths that some of the real problems go unnoticed.. Than there is the way the 1C team must view these sorts of people.. I can only imagine that when a member from 1C reads a post that starts off complain about a 'myth' the 1C member probably stops reading the post right then and there.. Which means if that post did include some info on a real problem later in the post it will be missed by the 1C member who stop reading it at first site of the myth

[Tree_UK]

Just got back from my latest vacation some mix up over what is truth and what is abusive apparently :confused:
The update isn't really an update though is it? It's more of a 'we are throwing all our resources into BOM and you beta testers will have to wait until we throw you another old bone' kinda thing. Thanks for this BS anyway.

[esmiol]

everybody knows that all feature predicted during the devellopement may not be in the release version (because of time and be implemented later or maybe cancelled because of ressources)

but in the case of IL2 Cliffs of dover... we don't even have what we had with the old il2 when the first episode is coming out.

IA order, different weather....stability....ability to get out of his plane on ground... miror....

the fact is that they had a lot and a lot of work to do...and the minimum is to put all r'essources on BOB before doing a sequel!

we are really not in the time of first il2 where we had new plane free and lot of free patch who add feature...before buyable addons.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

everybody knows that all feature predicted during the devellopement may not be in the release version (because of time and be implemented later or maybe cancelled because of ressources)
Everybody knows?

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying that all the people who are saying we were lied to and ripped off because of a missing feature that Oleg may have mentioned once or twice over the past 6+ years of CoD dev are lying?

Huh, becaues up to now I was just giving them the benifit of the doubt that they didn't know or didn't understand

but in the case of IL2 Cliffs of dover... we don't even have what we had with the old il2 when the first episode is coming out.

IA order, different weather....
Just to be clear, I am not saying there are no issues with CoD. All I am saying is we should focus our efforts on real issues not myths

stability....
Bug are to be expected with any new software.. That is to say it is unrealistic to expect no bugs

ability to get out of his plane on ground... miror....
We could bail out, but not get out and walk around. To me, not being able to bail out while sitting on the ground during taxi is a none issue

the fact is that they had a lot and a lot of work to do...and the minimum is to put all r'essources on BOB before doing a sequel!Depends.. I for one am looking forward to the sequel, just as I looked forward to the half dozen or so IL-2 sequels that came out over the past 10 years.. Where the support for the previous version stopped and all efforts were put into the current version

we are really not in the time of first il2 where we had new plane free and lot of free patch who add feature...before buyable addons.
That is the problem with giving away stuff for free.. People start to expect you to give stuff away for free.. I think 1C should do as RoF does and charge $ for each new plane they provide.. Than that expectaion would go away

[MD_Titus]

Reading these answers I would very much doubt the Moscow game will be compatible with CloD. Sounds like the have effectively dumped CloD and moved on to building an entirely new engine, which I doubt would work with CloDs messy code.

Sorry chaps.
what?

huffing glue much? where does it say any of what you assume?
Do I interpret the answers correctly that the advertized patch aiming to fix many gfx problems and and was due in a few weeks, now is .. cancelled? or at least postponed to this "sequel"?
not the impression i get to be honest, the patch will fix/rework the engine and improve frame rate and appearance (getting this not just from the update post but another by devs). then battle of moscow will be an add-on/sequel that will add features like dynamic weather.
OK, but this was a land battle, although I admit,with air support.

My point was that CoD is a flight sim. I guess the sequel will be more of a stand-alone sim with tanks, etc., rather than an add-on to CoD. Not so much an IL-2 CoD/Battle of Moscow, as IL-2 Battle of Moscow. I was wondering what those tanks in the CoD previews were for.

Does the CoD "Battle of France" campaign include land battles, or is it just the air part of the battle?

binky9
what?
The goal is less whining, not more.
oh you optimist iamnotdavid
Good Grief! I would not want to see that!

Based upon past addons and updates even if it is an merged game you will still have seperate maps!

[Edit] I changed my post as I miss-read the OP.
what, me eating a handful of bhut jolokias and crying like a little girl as my digestive system ignites, or flying off the edge of french and then onto steppes? ;) nah, i meant like online dogfight servers, where a map ends and the next one loads you into a different theatre - think skies of valor or similar, where you can have an evening flying spitfire mkvb, zero a6m5 and then la5 (or emils, hellcats and antons) across the various map and plane sets.
Thanks for the update. I guess the positive people will see it as positive and vice versa for the negative. Oh well.

This bit made me laugh:

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.

An excellent answer. Nearly wet myself.
i do like ilya's sense of humour
Yaaa for updates !!!! :):) hope the squeal adds Americana and Russian planes.
lol whut?
Its highly unlikely that you will have to pay for the Battle for Moscow to get any new features like dynamic weather. It would probably be added as a patch to COD, although most people will probably buy Battle for Moscow and any new features will be added to COD, when they do a merged install. Personally I don't have that much interest in the Eastern front but will quite happily buy it to support further theaters, like the Med.
i find i have less interest for the battle of britain than other theatres, it's somewhat limited in scope, in that there isn't really the same mix of mission profiles as you get in, say, the pacific, africa or eastern theatres. or maybe i'm thinking like that because channel flying is the only thing on the menu, and you'd get tired of fillet steak if it was all you ate. having the variety of planesets and maps across an evenings gaming will be excellent.

[Frequent_Flyer]

The Battle of Moscow will be BOB without the channel. Essentially, the plane set will be early war trainers, with a timble full of fuel, flying short, limited in scope missions over bland uninspiring landscape, with inadequate ammunition. From my perspective this is dissapointing.However, it appears the sim in its present state may only be capable of the simple early war scanirios.

[Chivas]

The Battle of Moscow will be BOB without the channel. Essentially, the plane set will be early war trainers, with a timble full of fuel, flying short, limited in scope missions over bland uninspiring landscape, with inadequate ammunition. From my perspective this is dissapointing.However, it appears the sim in its present state may only be capable of the simple early war scanirios.

I agree to some extent. The developers bank account and the publishers are probably pushing the developers to do another paid sequel as soon as possible. Then they will have more time and money to flesh out the missing or unworking features. Of course a few of the missing and unworking features should be working by the time the Battle for Moscow comes out. This scenario will probably evolve the same way with each added theater. Overtime average computers will be more powerfull allowing for larger theaters, and more advanced features. This has been a long hard road for the developer, and I don't see it getting much easier until the game engine is more refined and capable.

[Tavingon]

I hope any improvements are implimented for CLOD too..

[Ze-Jamz]

Make way for the multi quotes.....again

[Chivas]

I hope any improvements are implimented for CLOD too..

This is a given. All theaters use the same game engine and features, the only thing that changes are maps.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

This is a given. All theaters use the same game engine and features, the only thing that changes are maps.
Bingo!

It's too bad that some people here are too young or were not around to remember how 1C handled IL-2

Over IL-2's 10+ years we received dozens of free updates that not only fixed bugs but added new planes and maps

And included several sequels that we paid for. Where each sequel not only added new planes, maps, features, but it also included all the resources (planes, maps, ect) from the previous versions.. An all in one package that resulted in maps from all around the world and some 500+ planes to fly

Had these people only been old enough to experience all this I think they would not be so worried/upset by the news that 1C is working on a sequel.

[Frequent_Flyer]

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.


In the Battle of Moscow,it will be interesting to see how historically accurate the , unreliable, underpowered, overheating to the point of combustion, oil spewing Yaks and LaGG's are modeled. Including the the yellow windscreen and canopy "feature".

I hope the Developers " discuss with some members of the community" the next theater . I know they certainly do not owe us this courtesy but it could generate some additional interest, at present this appears to be waning.

[Frequent_Flyer]

I agree to some extent. The developers bank account and the publishers are probably pushing the developers to do another paid sequel as soon as possible. Then they will have more time and money to flesh out the missing or unworking features. Of course a few of the missing and unworking features should be working by the time the Battle for Moscow comes out. This scenario will probably evolve the same way with each added theater. Overtime average computers will be more powerfull allowing for larger theaters, and more advanced features. This has been a long hard road for the developer, and I don't see it getting much easier until the game engine is more refined and capable.

COD has infinately better damage models( compared toIL-2 1946), ballistics appear to be historically accurate and the aircraft models are stunning. However, I think it will be awhile before the complexities of for example the Pacific theater can be " simulated" within this engine.
Weather and clouds would vastly improve the current state of COD,hopefully soon.

[Chivas]

Bingo!

It's too bad that some people here are too young or were not around to remember how 1C handled IL-2

Over IL-2's 10+ years we received dozens of free updates that not only fixed bugs but added new planes and maps

And included several sequels that we paid for. Where each sequel not only added new planes, maps, features, but it also included all the resources (planes, maps, ect) from the previous versions.. An all in one package that resulted in maps from all around the world and some 500+ planes to fly

Had these people only been old enough to experience all this I think they would not be so worried/upset by the news that 1C is working on a sequel.

I agree, hopefully the development will survive this very rough start to accomplish all thats possible. The Battle of Britain scenario was a great place to start, but probably wasn't as big a seller in Russia as the Battle for Moscow would have been. The release of the Battle for Moscow should put the development in a much more stable financial situation that will make what we all want from the sim more likely. Many people are not going to be happy, but you have to look at the big picture, especially on a project as complex, and time consuming as this one. Never mind having to rewrite basic features. I've never seen a project have so many setbacks, but understand how it can happen.

[Chivas]

COD has infinately better damage models( compared toIL-2 1946), ballistics appear to be historically accurate and the aircraft models are stunning. However, I think it will be awhile before the complexities of for example the Pacific theater can be " simulated" within this engine.
Weather and clouds would vastly improve the current state of COD,hopefully soon.

I agree, I've never understood how the development was going to add all the features they've talked about on todays computers. Nevermind trying to do this on much larger maps, but if they survive, things will only get better.

[Jumo211]

Hmmm....new patch ?
some of you are expecting new patch ? for BoB obsolete version ?
If the game engine code was fuked up and needs rewritting of engine
code I strongly believe the new game engine will be released with the
new BoM fixing BoB older version at the same time .
If it is true about game engine code rewritting and who knows what that
exactly means that I can't believe in my right mind this will be done in
" two weeks " .:lol:
It might make more sense for developer to scratch BoB update and get it
right again with new game engine for BoM release forcing you to get BoM
in order to update BoB :mrgreen: ( conspiracy theory )
No matter how I look at it after so many years of waiting I feel I got
screwed anyway even if they fix everything tomorrow.
As sad as it might sound this is what I think is happening and I hope I am
wrong !

S! HG

[superman]

Simple maths

The more it looks like real world the more things you will find that are different.

When it starts to look almost real, the number of differences are nearing infinity and so also the potential things to complain about.


The problem a lot of people have is not with the game, it is that they are getting older an don´t have the imagination they had a few years back.

I think I remember a time when just playing with a toy plane was
"totally immersive"

[Frequent_Flyer]

I agree, I've never understood how the development was going to add all the features they've talked about on todays computers. Nevermind trying to do this on much larger maps, but if they survive, things will only get better.

Part of the discontent from the consumer of COD is a significant percentage play primarily off line. Understandable, with the major renovation of code and sound etc. not much has been done from release date to present to improve this function. Heres hoping 1c will stand the test of time.

[Kwiatek]

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.


In the Battle of Moscow,it will be interesting to see how historically accurate the , unreliable, underpowered, overheating to the point of combustion, oil spewing Yaks and LaGG's are modeled. Including the the yellow windscreen and canopy "feature".

I hope the Developers " discuss with some members of the community" the next theater . I know they certainly do not owe us this courtesy but it could generate some additional interest, at present this appears to be waning.

I have seriously doubt beacuse 1C wasn't able to made correctly performance and flight models for only a few BOB planes. They all have serious issues. So i really dont expect too much reality from Battle of Moscow planes.

[MD_Titus]

Because it's you Titus, I'm adding this to my sig :D

:twisted:
:cool:

sig fame at last!
Make way for the multi quotes.....again
do you not like the Mighty Wall of Text?

[Ze-Jamz]

do you not like the Mighty Wall of Text?

NO:!:

[JG52Krupi]

NO:!:

Have to agree, what's with the pulling apart and analysing of a persons post... its beyond ridiculous and can completely change the whole meaning of a posters paragraph.

[Gourmand]

Question 2, 6 and 11 should not be lower priority
it's not just cosmetic to be killed by aircraft when we sank or aircraft landed with the cockpit in fire...

and lights is cosmetic? :shock:
how do a night flight without wing lights???

[ACE-OF-ACES]

do you not like the mighty wall of text?
rotfl!

my wall is bigger than your wall! ;)

[Peril]

Hello!



18. When you are going to add Structural Limits to the FM's? (maximum allowable g acceleration on the aircraft structure. And the aircraft damage due to exceeding the Vne or maximum g acceleration).

Quote:
Nothing causes more frustration on both sides than discussing structural limits. We do have a structural limit model already, and we will improve it. However it does not nor will it work like the model created by Team Daidalos. If this was question 1 or 2 I’d perhaps be more verbose. Most aircraft that exceeded their structural limit are written off on the ground, and the fact is established with a careful measurement with a fine ruler.



For what it's worth I agree on the DM choices being made.

There is realism, and then there is 'sensationalism!' The latter is what game developers create to sell more games to kids (wow factor). FPS games for example, how many shots does it take to kill someone 'realistically'.

Planes don't fly apart because they exceed VNE on a single occasion, not unless it has a fault anyway. This kind of damage is more accumulative than instantaneous. Any high amount of G that would instantly break a plane up would likely kill the pilot first anyway.

Realism doesn't traditionally sell games/sims, lets hope they have a big enough market to stick to this hard line. In the end it's always about the money for a commercial enterprise to survive.

[addman]

I agree to some extent. The developers bank account and the publishers are probably pushing the developers to do another paid sequel as soon as possible. Then they will have more time and money to flesh out the missing or unworking features. Of course a few of the missing and unworking features should be working by the time the Battle for Moscow comes out. This scenario will probably evolve the same way with each added theater. Overtime average computers will be more powerfull allowing for larger theaters, and more advanced features. This has been a long hard road for the developer, and I don't see it getting much easier until the game engine is more refined and capable.

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

[Gourmand]

for the sequel
for the sequel
for the sequel
...

:evil:

i hope the feature in the sequel will be backward compatible with cliff of dover ( less buying the sequel), i bought the collector 70€, and the feature will for the sequel?!?

for the open radiator :
if you start flight with plane whose begin flying, you should hurry up to open your radiators ;) i think this question is for this case, having a normal radiator opening with airstart aircraft ( like the gear up, the engin started... ;) )

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth".
When I read Chivas post..

I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That the new CoD graphics enigne is bringing the current crop (read average) PC and video card to its knees (read poor FPS)

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2

When it originally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics enigne was bringing the current crop (read average) of PCs and video cards at that time to thier knees also

But some 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The point being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaining about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequels.

Not some blanket statement that PC hardware advancements solves all developer problems

[addman]

When I read Chivas post.. I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That being it is killing alot of PCs today..

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2, when it orginally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics eninge was killing the standard PC of that time, but 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The analogy being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaning about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequals.

Yes this is a correct assessment if they create a stable platform to build from. Also what I meant was that even though newer and better hardware will help games perform better/contain more advanced features it doesn't make it any less of a gargantuan task for developers to push out stable and well performing software. I think for smaller developers like MG, it is crucial for focus instead of trying to create a jack of all trades that really won't be good at anything. What I think is that MG are on the right track now, it seems as if they have narrowed down their priorities. It's all in my mind of course but that's how I perceive it. :D

[Chivas]

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

I upgraded my highend systems a number of times during the life of the original IL-2 and will probably do the same with the new series. Technology makes a huge difference and I never once had to complain about blue screens, freezes, stuttering, fps, in IL-2 or COD on High settings. BUT your right it never guarantees a good game.

I also agree that MG may have tried to achieve to much, but you have to remember he wasn't designing a game engine for now, but one that could easily upgraded for many years. One of the reasons he divided the game engine in modules.

Unfortunately the game engine is so complex, and for many reasons has taken far too long to build. Once it is complete, then the developer can be more focused on which features and what time frame they would like to introduce these features.

[Insuber]

For what it's worth I agree on the DM choices being made.

There is realism, and then there is 'sensationalism!' The latter is what game developers create to sell more games to kids (wow factor). FPS games for example, how many shots does it take to kill someone 'realistically'.

Planes don't fly apart because they exceed VNE on a single occasion, not unless it has a fault anyway. This kind of damage is more accumulative than instantaneous. Any high amount of G that would instantly break a plane up would likely kill the pilot first anyway.

Realism doesn't traditionally sell games/sims, lets hope they have a big enough market to stick to this hard line. In the end it's always about the money for a commercial enterprise to survive.

I understand Luthier's point that the g stress discussion is often inconclusive and tends to degenerate, but it should not be the excuse to do nothing. I believe that g stress damage is under modeled in CloD, and this gives undue advantages in some situations, namely to 109's strafing Hawkinge ;-).
It is true that in general the frame damage is cumulative, and in the current gameplay you "create" a brand new plane at every flight, thus "repairing" any previous airframe damage.
But in some cases the Vne or g damages are immediate and traumatic and lead to the loss of vital parts, such as ailerons and elevators, or even wings. I have not yet experienced one single damage of this kind in CloD, after 150+ h in the 109 and 50+ in red planes, sometimes with deep and long dives, very hard pullouts and all, apart from one single time on a Hurricane (I lost an aileron after a VERY deep dive).
And apart from hard pullouts after a sharp dive, instant damages can arise from normal pullouts followed by a roll or turn, or hard maneuvers on a full loaded plane (fuel+bombs). Have someone seen them yet?

To avoid discussions on this thread I will open another one, but as a starter you may want to read this thread, and in particular the US Navy case studies about the "G Hogs", at the bottom of page 1.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/wing-breakage-109-spitfire-22553.html

PS: the amount of "banned" people in this ww2aircraft forum thread gives you an idea about the touchiness of this subject ... and the bad temper of combat flight simmers ... :-D


Cheers,
Insuber

[David198502]

I understand Luthier's point that the g stress discussion is often inconclusive and tends to degenerate, but it should not be the excuse to do nothing. I believe that g stress damage is under modeled in CloD, and this gives undue advantages in some situations, namely to 109's strafing Hawkinge ;-).
It is true that in general the frame damage is cumulative, and in the current gameplay you "create" a brand new plane at every flight, thus "repairing" any previous airframe damage.
But in some cases the Vne or g damages are immediate and traumatic and lead to the loss of vital parts, such as ailerons and elevators, or even wings. I have not yet experienced one single damage of this kind in CloD, after 150+ h in the 109 and 50+ in red planes, sometimes with deep and long dives, very hard pullouts and all, apart from one single time on a Hurricane (I lost an aileron after a VERY deep dive).
And apart from hard pullouts after a sharp dive, instant damages can arise from normal pullouts followed by a roll or turn, or hard maneuvers on a full loaded plane (fuel+bombs). Have someone seen them yet?

To avoid discussions on this thread I will open another one, but as a starter you may want to read this thread, and in particular the US Navy case studies about the "G Hogs", at the bottom of page 1.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/wing-breakage-109-spitfire-22553.html

Cheers,
Insuber

i was wondering this myself, as i have yet to loose a part of my plane only through g forces.(+700 hours of flying Emils)
but i introduced a friend of mine to clod, and we were both in a 109.i lead the flight, and after some minutes, he was eager to shoot something, so he decided to give a small burst at me.i noticed it and climbed away,and came back on his high six, and shot a really short load on his left wing.nothing on his plane seemed to be damaged.then he made a hard turn left at about 400kph, and suddenly his wing broke off.that was the first and only time i saw something like that.

[Caveman]

Simple maths

The more it looks like real world the more things you will find that are different.

When it starts to look almost real, the number of differences are nearing infinity and so also the potential things to complain about.


The problem a lot of people have is not with the game, it is that they are getting older an don´t have the imagination they had a few years back.

I think I remember a time when just playing with a toy plane was
"totally immersive"

+1 so true... I remember being "immersed" in Microsoft sopwith camel addition to a very early version of flight simulator. I played for hours on a IMB PC Junior ~1983 with a keyboard and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread... Can't understand the people that complain...

[Feuerfalke]

Really nice.

But I won't buy any sequel/addon/Payware-Patch unless the basic game I already payed for is fixed.

[bongodriver]

+1 so true... I remember being "immersed" in Microsoft sopwith camel addition to a very early version of flight simulator. I played for hours on a IMB PC Junior ~1983 with a keyboard and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread... Can't understand the people that complain...

it's because they like complaining...I'm sure one of them will be along soon complaining about your criticism of them....I hope you are familiar with the term 'fanboi' because they throw that one around a hell of alot, it's also something to do with them having to spend a few bucks on a game and now their children will have to starve for a year.

[Buchon]

Yeah they sometimes found a IL2-COD fan in the 1C / IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover forum :rolleyes:

The world is doomed !! :grin:

[JG52Krupi]

it's because they like complaining...I'm sure one of them will be along soon complaining about your criticism of them....I hope you are familiar with the term 'fanboi' because they throw that one around a hell of alot, it's also something to do with them having to spend a few bucks on a game and now their children will have to starve for a year.

LMAO nice one bongo :D

[Mad G]

Really nice.

But I won't buy any sequel/addon/Payware-Patch unless the basic game I already payed for is fixed.


Me too!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I remember being "immersed" in Microsoft sopwith camel addition to a very early version of flight simulator. I played for hours on a IMB PC Junior ~1983 with a keyboard and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread...
WOW!

Now that takes me back! I was station in Germany in 1984 when my buddy bought a Comador 64.. At first I thought he was a nerd.. Enh, who needs a computer! Than he firedup that wire fram sopwith camel game.. I don't know how many hours we played that sitting in the barracks.. But it was alot! Huddled around the little screen with that key board and german beer.. Hmm maybe it was the beer? ;)

Can't understand the people that complain...
Sadly it is human nature to do so.. I only wish they would complain about real issues over the myth issues

[ACE-OF-ACES]

it's also something to do with them having to spend a few bucks on a game and now their children will have to starve for a year.
Oh SNAP!

Kind of reminds me of the guy who had a couple of thousands of dollars invested in his rims and tires on a car that was only worth $500 while his kids ran around with no shoes on.. Just never figured those guys played flights sims too! ;)

[TomcatViP]

Wait ! Do you mean that I can't hve shiny rims and oversized tires on my 109 for now ? !!

Tht's a mod that I wld hve used, Yo!

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Yo Yo Yo.. player don't diss the bling bling! ;)

[andrea78]

Too many "sequel" words IMHO.

I understand that if I want a quite finished Clod, I have to buy Clod2.

It will be nice if, before releasing any kind of sequel, Clod will be finished: it is a matter of respect for those that buy Clod months ago, considering the the actual status of the game. Anyway, I'm sure that Clod2 will be on market before completing Clod.

To be honest, only a fanboy can actually think to buy Clod2: oh, maybe I will buy it, as I bought Clod even if review were awful... but my stupidity - perhaps - is not endless...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

It will be nice if, before releasing any kind of sequel
That is the whole point.. IL-2 was NEVER FINISHED!

1C kept it alive for 10+ years by providing free updates and paid for updates (sequal)

Thus I wouldn't expect them to change thier track record with CoD..

As a mater of fact I am couting on them not changing thier track record with CoD! ;)

[andrea78]

c'mon, It is clear that no one pretend 100 flyable planes, 50 campaigns and so on for Clod.. but actually Clod is an approximative game considering each aspect of the game, so it will be nice if before talking of the sequel some significant (and definitive) improvements will be release. It is a matter of good taste...

[ACE-OF-ACES]

c'mon, It is clear that no one pretend 100 flyable planes, 50 campaigns and so on for Clod.. but actually Clod is an approximative game considering each aspect of the game,
Not sure I follow ya?

But know this, the original IL-2 was a Russian front only game.. And the focus was on ground attack, hence the IL-2! As a mater of fact, IL-2 was one of the first flight sims to focus on ground attack, prior to that it was all air to air, but I digress.. The point is each patch and sequal added more to IL-2

so it will be nice if before talking of the sequel some significant (and definitive) improvements will be release. It is a matter of good taste...
Enh.. its a matter of the FACT that flight sims are a niche market IMHO..

We either work with the developers and get what we want in time.. Or we demand something and stand the chance that we get nothing..

Take a look at SH5! Those developers left everyone hanging and no amount of beyaching changed that, as a mater of fact it is MHO that the amount of beyaching only confirmed it demise

In summary.. If I was spending $500 bucks on a flight sim instead of the $50 bucks I do spend, than I think all the whining would be justified by all.. But when you consider you can spend $50 in less than a few hours at the local pub it really puts it into perspective.. At least it does for me!

Long story short, if spending $50 bucks on a game is actually factoring into your 'budget' than I think it would be well advised that those types find another hobby! Something a little more affordable.. Like checkers! One time investment on a board and your good to go until the big dirt nap!

[Buchon]

To be honest, only a fanboy can actually think to buy Clod2: oh, maybe I will buy it, as I bought Clod even if review were awful... but my stupidity - perhaps - is not endless...

What is more stupid :

-Talk about the Moscu theater where the modelers, once finished his work in BoB, are started working while the programers fix the game´s core.

-Go to a game forum to call the fans of the game Fanboys and stupids for buy, play and talk about their precious game, and wait improvements by the way.

+to Bongodriver for the prediction. :)

[furbs]

The graphics are being rewritten, the sounds been rewritten, the AI, the physics, its all been rewritten because its broken old outdated code that doesn't work very well.
CLOD is toast.
Why else would Luthier say all the features that were supposed to be in CLOD will now only be available in the sequel?

The development team are a joke IMO. The whole development of CLOD from start to now has been a joke. 7 years in development? ...a joke. Olegs vanishing act on day 1 of release?... a joke. the epilepsy filter...a joke.
Almost a year after release and CLOD still has many many bugs, problems and missing features that they have given up and moved on to a sequel, im willing to bet BOM will be a stand alone and not be able to be merged with CLOD because they will have binned it.

[Buchon]

The graphics are being rewritten, the sounds been rewritten, the AI, the physics, its all been rewritten because its broken old outdated code that doesn't work very well.
CLOD is toast.
Why else would Luthier say all the features that were supposed to be in CLOD will now only be available in the sequel?

The development team are a joke IMO. The whole development of CLOD from start to now has been a joke. 7 years in development? ...a joke. Olegs vanishing act on day 1 of release?... a joke. the epilepsy filter...a joke.
Almost a year after release and CLOD still has many many bugs, problems and missing features that they have given up and moved on to a sequel, im willing to bet BOM will be a stand alone and not be able to be merged with CLOD because they will have binned it.

I found more hilarius your post than all the "jokes" described :rolleyes:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

The graphics are being rewritten, the sounds been rewritten, the AI, the physics, its all been rewritten because its broken old outdated code that doesn't work very well.
CLOD is toast.
Why else would Luthier say all the features that were supposed to be in CLOD will now only be available in the sequel?
Clearly your not a programer..

Because if you were you would understand that upgrading the graphics and audio engines does not automaticaly delete all the..

3D external plane models
3D cockpit models
3D map models
FM code
DM code
Network code
etc.. etc.. etc..

All of which can be reused..

That stuff is the bulk of the sim

Not the eye-candy!

CoD would NOT be the first game to upgrad its graphics engine

[furbs]

Almost EVERY feature of CLOD is broken or bugged or missing.
FM
DM
Weather
Radio commands
Ground handling
CEM
Track recorder
Sound
Map features
No CO-OPs
Radar
Single player Campaigns
Memory leaks
Exe crashes

This is after 7 years of development, almost a year after release and 4 patches.

Yes, most flightsims are like this....give me a break Ace, il have what ever your smoking.

Edit...i forgot... no FSAA and a UI that still looks like its been made in 1995

[5./JG27.Farber]

I know somethings that will not be in the sequal - the programmers....


Bwahahahahah.:-P

[Tree_UK]

At last somebody else who like me cannot see the 'Emperors new clothes', to be fair I never saw them during the development either, and certainly I saw through all the BS that Oleg and Luthier were spouting.


To Quote Johnny Rotten "Ever feel like you've been cheated" !!


All you other muppets who think this is all positive deserve to be ripped off in future, enough for me.

[Ze-Jamz]

De ja vu anyone... :)

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Almost EVERY feature of CLOD is broken or bugged or missing.
That is an easy claim to toss out..

But much harder to prove..

As a mater of FACT I know that if you made an atemp to provide proof on each of those items you would find, and maybe even learn, that most if not all of your statements fall into the category of 'personal', as in your opinion.

Take DM for example.. I challenge you to FIRST make a clear statement, than provide proof to support your statement. After a few minutes I think you will realize you have nothing to support your statement.

For example.. Lets assume that you said.. The elevator of the Bf109 should not become in-op after X amount of .303 hits

Now show us your real world data, and our structural analysis to support this claim along with your modeling of the .303 rounds

See?

Not so easy is it, thus, your statements that such and such is broken or bugged or missing has very little merit upon closer inspection.. Granted I am sure the gloom'n'doom band wagon will disagree with me and hold you up as some sort of messiah, but for those based in reality, they will see your claims as I see them.

As your personal opinion, not fact

[Tree_UK]

That is an easy claim to toss out..

But much harder to prove..

As a mater of FACT I know that if you made an atemp to provide proof on each of those items you would find, and maybe even learn, that most if not all of your statements fall into the category of 'personal', as in your opinion.

Take DM for example.. I challenge you to FIRST make a clear statement, than provide proof to support your statement. After a few minutes I think you will realize you have nothing to support your statement.

For example.. Lets assume that you said.. The elevator of the Bf109 should not become in-op after X amount of .303 hits

Now show us your real world data, and our structural analysis to support this claim along with your modeling of the .303 rounds

See?

Not so easy is it, thus, your statements that such and such is broken or bugged or missing has very little merit upon closer inspection.. Granted I am sure the gloom'n'doom band wagon will disagree with me and hold you up as some sort of messiah, but for those based in reality, they will see your claims as I see them.

As your personal opinion, not fact

No one takes you seriously Ace, your a joke.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

No one takes you seriously Ace, your a joke.
http://www.synergy-athletics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/yawn.gif

[furbs]

OK DM...ive shot 109s and been flying 109s where the fuel tank has exploded and then the 109 has carried on flying while on fire and it has not affected the flight performance at all.
I would say that is a DM bug.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Do we really need to do this every single time we get some sort of an update?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

OK DM...ive shot 109s and been flying 109s where the fuel tank has exploded and then the 109 has carried on flying while on fire and it has not affected the flight performance at all.
I would say that is a DM bug.
How did you verify your flight performance was not affected?

Where you running a C# script to logg the data while flying, which confirmed that you could still obtain the rated top speed and rate of climb?

If so could you post a link to that?

Because I would like to make a reference to your link as example of how to do bug testing the correct way!

Thanks in advance!

Now.. that is just one item listed in your list of broken/bugged, mising items.. Care to do a few more?

[furbs]

ACE are you saying that if the fuel tank explodes on a 109 i should be able to carry on flying and fighting for 20 mins while on fire with no further damage and then fly home and land?

Again...what are you smoking?

[bongodriver]

ACE are you saying that if the fuel tank explodes on a 109 i should be able to carry on flying and fighting for 20 mins while on fire with no further damage and then fly home and land?

Again...what are you smoking?

it might be an effects bug.......

[ACE-OF-ACES]

ACE are you saying that if the fuel tank explodes on a 109 i should be able to carry on flying and fighting for 20 mins while on fire with no further damage and then fly home and land?
No.. what I am saying is listing one bug as some sort of blanket statment that covers all your claims is un-realistic

No one is saying CoD has NO bugs! No one I know anyways, bugs are to be expected!

Again...what are you smoking?
Reality.. I put down the myth stogies years ago! ;)

[furbs]

ACE it doesnt really matter what you and me or anyone says...the proof is in the pudding.
nobody is playing CLOD, esp squads playing any sort of online war like the VEF wars.
Nobody is playing because it has failed to grab the public players, more people are playing WOP.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

ACE it doesnt really matter what you and me or anyone says...
Agreed 100%

But forums is where we come to share all this meaningless banter! ;)

the proof is in the pudding. nobody is playing CLOD, esp squads playing any sort of online war like the VEF wars.
I beg to differ, that and I think the 40 on average playing on the ATAG server would also differ

Nobody is playing because it has failed to grab the public players, more people are playing WOP.
But that is true of any flight sim..

Thus it says no more about CoD than say RoF or any other sim.. Flight simming has allways been a nitch market in the gaming market

[kakkola]

Furbs is right!!!!
I`m now flying more WOP than COD,but i`m sure when the patch is coming out COD will be better.......I hope LOL:grin:

Cheers

[furbs]

40 people playing ATAG + about 20 others on the 5 other servers in the whole world is a tiny amount of people.

[bongodriver]

40 people playing ATAG + about 20 others on the 5 other servers in the whole world is a tiny amount of people.

Just out of interest how many on WOP servers or ROF or DCS?

[JG52Krupi]

40 people playing ATAG + about 20 others on the 5 other servers in the whole world is a tiny amount of people.

TBF RoF is not fairing much better :( all it means is that the large companies producing the same old rubbish are drawing in the sheep as usual :evil:

And it was more like 60 ppl on ATAG...

[xHeadbanDx]

ACE it doesnt really matter what you and me or anyone says...the proof is in the pudding.
nobody is playing CLOD, esp squads playing any sort of online war like the VEF wars.
Nobody is playing because it has failed to grab the public players, more people are playing WOP.

no one plays because it crashes ALLOT but, there is actually a descent amount of ppl that do play you can go onto the atag server and find 30 ppl most of the time.

the game will be awesome once the fix everything......... give it a year ...lol

[ACE-OF-ACES]

40 people playing ATAG + about 20 others on the 5 other servers in the whole world is a tiny amount of people.
Realitive to???

As I allready stated

Flight sims are a nitch market in the gaming market..

Last time I logged into DCS BlackShark or A10 the number of people playing was well under a 100.

So 40+ plus playing a.. how did you put it? broken, bugged, missing stuff flight sim says alot IMHO!

What does it say you ask?

Well IMHO what it says is there is MORE RIGHT about CoD than WRONG

[pupo162]

Just out of interest how many on WOP servers or ROF or DCS?

i dont know. but il2 1946, as about 50, twice a week on my squad server, for a single event.

i wish COD had the same ammount of activity that il2 has. but whilst its not working better ( its better, and finally working for me) people wont pass over ( belive me, preatty much every one of those 50 guys that fly on SEOW on my squad TS, are waiting for a general green light, to go and buy COD.

best wishes for next patch, and better be released soon. if COD starts working before christmas it would be a blast for the sales.

[KG26_Alpha]

There's 450 pilots in Hyperlobby IL2 1946 at the moment 21:00 GMT

No shortage of CoD customers, just a shortage of people willing to host something other than the usual boring Dogfights and generate some interest in the sim.

Hyperlobby has a great IL2 1946 community, Cliffs of Dover needs the same help as the original IL2 Series got from its users.

I don't think the CoD online interface helps create a community the way Hyperlobby does.

CooP FTW

:cool:

[Tree_UK]

CooP FTW

:cool:

100% agree, In killing Coop play Luthier and Oleg have pretty much destroyed a lot of online squads. The dumbest descion ever IMHO.

[Pudfark]

Much truth to that.....:(

[ACE-OF-ACES]

There's 450 pilots in Hyperlobby IL2 1946 at the moment 21:00 GMT
Not bad for a 10 year old sim aye?

No shortage of CoD customers, just a shortage of people willing to host something other than the usual boring Dogfights and generate some interest in the sim.
Well..

I know many of IL-2 customers that have been scared off by all the myths about CoD

I also know many of IL-2 customers that would love to be playing CoD right now.. myth or no myths.. but thier PC are not up to the challange, thus once they spend the $1,500 upgrade they will be playing CoD

Hyperlobby has a great IL2 1946 community, Cliffs of Dover needs the same help as the original IL2 Series got from its users.
Agreed 100%


I don't think the CoD online interface helps create a community the way Hyperlobby does.
But even with the addition of the CoD lobby in HL there still seems to be more joining via the build in gui.. Some of that I belive is due to fear of a steam ban, some of it is due to not knowing HL has a CoD lobby! ;)


CooP FTW
Agreed 100%

But some of the ATAG CoD servers get pretty close to the COOP feel at times

[HR_Naglfar]

I've played coops in CoD.

What's supposed to be the problem?


Btw I just can't fly IL2 1946 since I tried CoD. Seems like a toy to me since then :grin:

[furbs]

450 people playing IL2 right now.

[furbs]

How did you play a CO-OP with no CO-OP UI?

[Tree_UK]

Some people seem to think they can play COOP's but they are just a little confused, and probably think that they are somehow helping the Dev's by saying that they can play them. They of course cannot play a COOP.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

450 people playing IL2 right now.
450 people playing IL-2 servers in the whole world is a tiny amount of people...

I think that is how you put it when talking about CoD, right?

To which I pointed out once again that flight simming is a nitch market of the gaming market

When you consider the thousands upon thousands playing games like WOW

[furbs]

True ACE and CLOD has 10x less.
As you can tell im still really pissed off that CLOD has turned out this way, im so disappointed because i was looking forward to it more than any other sim than i can think of.

[JG53_Valantine]

As a Co-Op squad who have pretty much officially switched to CloD I can say quite fairly that what we are doing is not a true co-op, it is as close as we can get using a dogfght server and fixed "in house" rules however there are so many limitations right now that we cannot operate anywhere near the way we used to which is slowly killing people's enjoyment of the sim.
Bring back proper Co-Ops and fix stability: two of the bigget things they can do to make this sim much more accesible for the online community in my eyes - they say they have the new graphics engine where this launcher crash doesnt occur almost done? well they had no qualms about releasing an alpha copy for us to buy so why not rush this new graphics engine out as a beat patch too!

As for this "sequel" - it is kind of what I expected, and I've no real problem, bar a few grumbles, about it providing it merges with CloD and brings a load more to the table, if it is in a similar state to CloD or if it is a stand alone then I really can't see justification in getting it as support has been pretty poor considering the history of the IL2 series.
V

[ACE-OF-ACES]

True ACE and CLOD has 10x less.
Not only CoD, but most others online sims come in 10x less..

But it is not totally fair to compare a recently released sim to IL-2.

Because IL-2 has been around for 10+ years and has build up a very large base over that time. So I am not surprised that CoD, RoF, DCS, etc all fall short of the IL-2 numbers

Especially when you factor in the hardware equipment! Just about any kid-o in a 3rd world country with a 5 year old PC can play IL-2 on and offline

But it takes a very high end system to play CoD, RoF, DCS, etc. That reason alone is why most of the people I have talked to have not made the jump to CoD, or any other current sim.

But time will solve this problem! Just as long as 1C does not upgrade their graphics engine every year like they currently are

As you can tell im still really pissed off that CLOD has turned out this way, im so disappointed because i was looking forward to it more than any other sim than i can think of.
Me too bud!

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of things to be upset about wrt CoD! My only point is if we step back and look at it from a un-biased perspective we will realize it is not as bad as most of the gloom'n'doom whiners would have you belive!

Knowing what a nitch market flight sims are, it only takes a few gloom'n'doom whiners to float a myth that scares off prospective buyers.. And that does not do us or 1C any good!

That is to say, if you only have one GOLDEN GOOSE laying WWII flight sim games eggs.. Are you going to wring it's neck because it only layed 96 out of the 100 eggs you were expecting?

[5./JG27.Farber]

I think the game is great and has allot of potential. I can no longer play IL1946 after this. For me as a 100% online player the CTD's are the biggest killer...

I can handle every other thing in this game but the CTD issue is killing it. How can we host events and fly against other units when we can't stay in the game longer than about 40 mins?!

This game has so much potential.

[JG52Krupi]

I think the game is great and has allot of potential. I can no longer play IL1946 after this. For me as a 100% online player the CTD's are the biggest killer...

I can handle every other thing in this game but the CTD issue is killing it. How can we host events and fly against other units when we can't stay in the game longer than about 40 mins?!

This game has so much potential.

Agreed, it would be sad to see so much work go to waste due to a lack of polish...

[HR_Naglfar]

Some people seem to think they can play COOP's but they are just a little confused, and probably think that they are somehow helping the Dev's by saying that they can play them. They of course cannot play a COOP.

So, a bunch of Blenheims have to cross the channel to bomb some german airbases.

Everybody picks a plane, read the briefing, and when everybody is ready the mission starts.

How's that called? A dogfight? :rolleyes:


As a Co-Op squad who have pretty much officially switched to CloD I can say quite fairly that what we are doing is not a true co-op, it is as close as we can get using a dogfght server and fixed "in house" rules however there are so many limitations right now that we cannot operate anywhere near the way we used to which is slowly killing people's enjoyment of the sim.


What are these limitations exactly?


I agree that the big problem right now is the RAM issue. But coops? C'mon...

Just design a cooperative mission instead of a dogfight map, and fly it like a cooperative mission.

[hiro]

BlackSix / Dev crew, thanks for the update:


I appreciate it. I'm just one guy appreciating it, but thanks.






some false things going around



This games been in development in X years

X = 7, 10


Wrong. Under OLEG it would be true, but with the neu crew, the games been in development in a shorter amount of time. Oleg isn't a dev on this game so in reality it's development time is alot shorter.

I am going under the assumption of the typical programmer. Their Code is their baby, and they don't like to abandon their children.

So under Oleg there was a working game, but since he jetted in the jet, he took the Code with him.


Luthier and Co, realizing that most of the Code was missing, came up with the best they could in the short amount of time they had.

Hence Il-2 STurmovik CLiffs of Dover that we have. ANd its a good effort cuz the game does work in some respects. Lesser coders would have told the software house, its a no go at all.






The devs don't give a sh1z

False. If they didn't they'd cancelled the game long time ago, and refunded people's money and said the new Il-2 is postponed



Or they would have just stop selling the game apologized, and disassociated with the franchise and maybe in a future (change company assets + rename company, come out with a working WW 2 sim ) come out with a sim that looks like IL-2.



But no. The devs are sticking to it and fixing it. If you read carefully, they are putting stuff into a new sequel but they don't explicitly say CLod, COD, or BOB is said and done.

and they're keeping us updated even though they know the messenger's going to get shot, burnt, and ripped a new one for doing something useful.




whuut thyr rr puttin all in nu sekwal?


wait let google work . . .


IL-2 Sturmovik 2001 Windows Ubisoft

IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles 2003 Windows Ubisoft

IL-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles: Ace Expansion Pack 2004 Windows Ubisoft

IL-2 Forgotten Battles: Gold Pack 2004 Windows Ubisoft
Pacific Fighters 2004 Windows Ubisoft

IL-2 Sturmovik Series: Complete Edition 2006 Windows Ubisoft

PE-2 2006 Windows Ubisoft

IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946 (includes Sturmoviks over Manchuria and 46) 2007 Windows Ubisoft

1946: 4.09 patch 2010 - 4.11 (future) Team Diadalos patch

2001, 2002, 2003, yes you can count! Yes Chilr3n that is 3 years! And 2010 minus 2001 is 9 years!



google is your friend!






I've been cheated! They said the game would have X feature and it doesn't

Was this a under Oleg or new style Luthier promise?

And nothing is set in stone, especially anything coming from the gaming industry, and especially from a game thats still in development



They had a Lord of the Rings game came out, first trailer had human, elf, dwarf, can play any class. The release? human is locked into ranger class, elf is magic, and dwarf is warrior. Lots of ticked off fans?

Yes. Does the dev care?
No because they told the fans what they were doing. The release was to have locked classes. many complained but said they'd buy anyways.

And they still got mad, even though they knew months in advance about it, saying the dev pulled a fast one.



The second part . . . If you drive, you understand about a concept of a two way street.

If you're driving on your side, and its the right side you're supposed to be on (in your country of driving origin) and someone comes across the other side, clips the double dotted line, and cause a nice accident, nice because you both made it with just scratches

*use rectum in sentence:

I'm so mad that car came across the street and hit mine and rectum both.

So you're going to get mad at the street cuz its two way? No. Its ok to get mad at the other driver for lack of driving skill or the design not including an island or wall in the middle.




A seller has a responsibility to sell a working, quality product at a certain price. They have the choice of selling to a customer or not


A buyer has the responsibility of making sure the product they get is working, quality and the price they can pay. They have the choice of purchasing or not. They also the the responsibility to inform themselves of the what purchase entails.


Naturally Not all buyers and sellers live up to their reponsibility.

But people are crying they were cheated and the product doesn't work.


Well it does work, you have to read the fine print and have the following qualities . . . (a uber beast plus system, plus know alot about troubleshooting software / hardware + the patience of a saint)


1C or devs never cheated on anything. This was totally on the buyer, to be informed and make a decision to purchase.




1st time adopters: But I and alot of forumites thank you for letting us know about the release.





original Il-2 release wasn't this buggy

yes captain obvious. if you remember oleg and his dev team developed the game.


this new iteration of sturmovik was aborted when oleg jetted in the jet, and luthier took over. It is a testamount of Luthier and new dev crew's skills the game actually works as good as it does.

Most software dev houses would have quit while they were ahead and released something under different name, and diff company years from now.


also to salt the wound of obviousness, is the devs are working to make ClOd work. suka







This game is under development

IL-2 1946 is under "development." Next







I'm so angry I can beat a dead horse *beats dead horse with a B-36 wing / fusalage

Its understandable, this was to be the greatness that is worthy of 1946, and uber sim to end all sims, plus also now with a uber ww2 sim you can silence all the LOlz from the ROF crews who have a shiny new toy while ww2 ninjas get dated 1946.

sometimes pride does get stung. but if you can hang tough, you too can have Zed's motorcycle at the end*.


just don't spread false notions and waambulance threads

*cult movie




Why can't they tell me release dates


Wanna know how to make God laugh. Tell Him your plans!


Granted the devs aren't as good as God is. since God is good all the time, and people are burdened with sin. So if followers of God can be patient with God's timeline, why can't Il-3* fans be patient with the devs?

well the devs aren't gods but dang they sure should get props (proper recognition) for working on this game.

Patience is truely a virtue.


Software coding sometimes has weird things. Mechanics complain about gremlins, dude, software has the king and queens of gremlins. Ask any coder. Sometime the code does weird stuff. that takes time.



also google il-2 sturmovik and look at the original games release timeline, patience daniel-san

*good you noticed I put Il-3








This game should run on Xp/ lesser /weaksauce / current systems

I totally agree with you.


But hardware changes like a chameleon or octopus changes colors . . . and also this 64 bit thing throws things for a loop. Oh and maybe not one but two operating systems (win 7 and dreaded *shivers* vista) in history of development of this game (including oleg and new crew time)

I remember a good rule of software dev is to code so its compatible with current and new stuff. A maverick method was to code for software coming out next year (or in 3 years as the crazy prof in college said with that wild gaze in his eyes) .

But I don't know what the devs did, but from my own experience with the game, if you have a uber beast plus of a system, it will run.



buy a new PC. straight up. That is the answer the latest games have given to every gamer experiencing frame by frame action on the new hotness game they are into.

I don't agree with it, but thats the way it is. We just have to roll with it. Is there a way to change it so it isn't so. Yes. But are you willing to give up everything to make that your quest? When it might just be easier to just go with it?


Its just accepting things are the way they are. , like some people throw away expensive cars and yachts the way a middle class yuppie throws away half ful starbux coffee . . .

[Jumo211]

So under Oleg there was a working game, but since he jetted in the jet, he took the Code with him.

Luthier and Co, realizing that most of the Code was missing, came up with the best they could in the short amount of time they had.

Hence Il-2 STurmovik CLiffs of Dover that we have.........

Oleg named Luthier as his successor , yet when Oleg left he
took the code with him leaving Luthier high and dry ? :lol:

L.O.L. that was a good one ! :lol: whatever dude ! :roll:

S! HG

[Rattlehead]

Donkey, meet carrot.

[furbs]

So, a bunch of Blenheims have to cross the channel to bomb some german airbases.

Everybody picks a plane, read the briefing, and when everybody is ready the mission starts.

How's that called? A dogfight? :rolleyes:




What are these limitations exactly?


I agree that the big problem right now is the RAM issue. But coops? C'mon...

Just design a cooperative mission instead of a dogfight map, and fly it like a cooperative mission.


Of course you can try that...but what after 15 mins of forming up one of your pilots has forgotten to load the right bombs?
Thats rights....back to the start...another 15 mins forming up...20 mins crossing the channel...dam...the 109s didnt turn up on time....back to the start...15mins...20 mins....

You see?

For training you need real CO-OPs...where you can put your flight in the air 10 mins from target and with the CAP flight ready...want to swap round and fly the CAP 109s? easy...couple of clicks and away you go...want to change the planes? easy....5 mins and go again...thats why we haven't got CO-OPs and why we need them.

CO-OPs and a stable game, they are the 2 things this sim needs right now.

[Nitrous]

+1

COOPs and Stability would keep alot of people happy, content and quiet whilst they developed the game and fixed the minor issues.

I just hope the team take note of this otherwise they are in for alot more whining even if they bring out BoM.

[KG26_Alpha]

So, a bunch of Blenheims have to cross the channel to bomb some german airbases.

Everybody picks a plane, read the briefing, and when everybody is ready the mission starts.

How's that called? A dogfight? :rolleyes:




What are these limitations exactly?


I agree that the big problem right now is the RAM issue. But coops? C'mon...

Just design a cooperative mission instead of a dogfight map, and fly it like a cooperative mission.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27934

[Nitrous]

Thx Alpha.

At least some actually know what they are talking about.

[robtek]

Of course you can try that...but what after 15 mins of forming up one of your pilots has forgotten to load the right bombs?
Thats rights....back to the start...another 15 mins forming up...20 mins crossing the channel...dam...the 109s didnt turn up on time....back to the start...15mins...20 mins....

You see?

For training you need real CO-OPs...where you can put your flight in the air 10 mins from target and with the CAP flight ready...want to swap round and fly the CAP 109s? easy...couple of clicks and away you go...want to change the planes? easy....5 mins and go again...thats why we haven't got CO-OPs and why we need them.

CO-OPs and a stable game, they are the 2 things this sim needs right now.

What is the problem to create this mission in the fmb? Even i, with no experience in the fmb, would be able to do that.

You spawn on the map and then choose the ai-plane to take over, be it fighter or bomber.

The bombers have the right loadout (no dumb human involved), and the fighters are the right type.

For different combinations you copy the mission and do the needed changes to the copy.

If you are willing to reach a goal, it is possible, but then it is way easier to lament the state CoD is in and wait for someone to do the work for the easiest way.

[HR_Naglfar]

Of course you can try that...but what after 15 mins of forming up one of your pilots has forgotten to load the right bombs?
Thats rights....back to the start...another 15 mins forming up...20 mins crossing the channel...dam...the 109s didnt turn up on time....back to the start...15mins...20 mins....

You see?


As Robtek said, you can just put the airplanes with the right loadout, and the right waypoints, and the right briefing in the mission, and when you load the mission you'll have a list with all the airplanes to select which you want.

There's a problem though, related to the player position before selecting any plane, but it have easy solution.


http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27934

Yes, CoD doesn't have the exact coop menu like 1946 has. So what? It isn't a cooperative mission just because the menu is different?

You can make cooperative missions and fly them like cooperative missions. And you can use naryv's coop script to make it easier, or any other script that makes the AIs being idle untill everybody is ready.

If you don't want to make scripts, neither use other people scripts, that's another thing...

[KG26_Alpha]

It isn't a CooP because there's no CooP GUI just another DF mission because there's no CooP start and no CooP end to the mission.

CooP

Place pilots and Aircraft at the start of the mission when the host hits Start Battle, at the moment Start battle launches the mission and pilots have to select aircraft arm and fuel skins etc then join the mission that's already in progress, ending the mission shows no pilots scores or mission success, its just another DF and pointless as it has no structure.

I welcome someone to upload a CooP mission that has the host able to launch the mission with all pilots starting at the same time armed and fuelled ready to take off then fly complete the Coop tasks land and the host closes and we see scores and goals in the mission debriefing room, well you wont because it don't exist as it does in IL2 1946 unfortunately.

I know this is a different sim/game but fundamentally its one of the biggest flaws not having a proper CooP gui and Ready/Debriefing room.

The script everyone keeps mentioning has been discussed and is a work around for using the Channel map to spawn with out DF server born places.

Lets hope they fix it soon.

[robtek]

Except for the missing results/debriefing the rest is rather senseless ballast from old il2, so it seems to me.

The approach seems rather procedure-bound instead solution-bound, at least that is the impression i have.

You can have prepared flight-groups to take over to avoid wrong load-outs and/or planes.

At the same time you can let every pilot choose plane and load-out and then spawn.

As for the mission start on the same time, i fail to see the need for that, either you wait before mission start and join together or you join and wait in game.

Of course all that would be easier with the old gui, but then the priority is not that high, i imagine, as there are possibilities to do it without.

[KG26_Alpha]

Except for the missing results/debriefing the rest is rather senseless ballast from old il2, so it seems to me.

The approach seems rather procedure-bound instead solution-bound, at least that is the impression i have.

You can have prepared flight-groups to take over to avoid wrong load-outs and/or planes.

At the same time you can let every pilot choose plane and load-out and then spawn.

As for the mission start on the same time, i fail to see the need for that, either you wait before mission start and join together or you join and wait in game.

Of course all that would be easier with the old gui, but then the priority is not that high, i imagine, as there are possibilities to do it without.

You miss the point then of a CooP most treat them like DF servers anyway sometimes.

CooP's create scenarios and or particular recreations of actual historical missions events or even sometime plain old fun.

At the moment the CooP isnt a CooP is a glorified DF you need to have all ac start at the same time If you are a flight leader and have ai starting ahead of you because you are arming fuelling your ac the sync of the mission is displaced all its needs is the Battle start to happen after everyones ready to start.

If you have ever flown IL2 1946 CooP you will know the procedure we have a ready room and a debriefing room with mission scores and stats.

Theres nothing in CoD to show the CooP's ended or the maps won and how well the pilots did.

As for priorities, many of us CooP pilots never use DF servers as they become boring very quickly, especially if you are a mud mover,
so having a non functioning Coop GUI is as bad has having no Df server GUI for us.
At best the restriction on servers is down to a few Df servers guru's that understand scripts and make it half interesting, but this is left to a select few FMB'ers.

Get the CooP function working properly then the online campaign wars can start also.


.



.

[KG26_Alpha]

Thx Alpha.

At least some actually know what they are talking about.

Who me ............never


:grin:

[ACE-OF-ACES]

At the moment the CooP isnt a CooP is a glorified DF you need to have all ac start at the same time If you are a flight leader and have ai starting ahead of you because you are arming fuelling your ac the sync of the mission is displaced all its needs is the Battle start to happen after everyones ready to start.

and
If you have ever flown IL2 1946 CooP you will know the procedure we have a ready room and a debriefing room with mission scores and stats.

Theres nothing in CoD to show the CooP's ended or the maps won and how well the pilots did.
Im not a CoD 'script' expert..

Ataros would be the one to ask.. But I am pretty sure you can do all that with the 'new' CoD C# script.. AND MORE!

I know that back in the IL-2 days.. Mission makers were asking for more and More and MORE FMB control..

So, 1C gave us the C# script methods to do all sorts of things that could not be done in the old IL-2 FMB alone

Granted there is a learning curve, granted some mission makers are not going to be able to pick up on it.. Which will make the IL-2 to CoD transition ugly for some mission makers

But in the end I think more FMB control is a good thing

[addman]

I agree with alpha, coop is the only form of multiplayer that draws me in and keeps me interested in almost any games I play. The old IL-2 interface might be archaic by todays standards but at least it was functional and did the job. Here's for hoping for a better coop interface/implementation in future patches/expansions/add-ons/sequels or whatever they'll be called.

[HR_Naglfar]

CooP's create scenarios and or particular recreations of actual historical missions events or even sometime plain old fun.

You can do that right now with CoD.


At the moment the CooP isnt a CooP is a glorified DF you need to have all ac start at the same time If you are a flight leader and have ai starting ahead of you because you are arming fuelling your ac the sync of the mission is displaced all its needs is the Battle start to happen after everyones ready to start.

You can set all AI groups to idle and give them an order to start flying with the menu when everyones ready to start. Using your own made script or naryv's one (wich I didn't try yet btw, but I'll do asap).


If you have ever flown IL2 1946 CooP you will know the procedure we have a ready room and a debriefing room with mission scores and stats.

Theres nothing in CoD to show the CooP's ended or the maps won and how well the pilots did.

You can add whatever objective you want and make a message appear in the screen when is completed. And I'm not sure if there are some examples yet, but I think that you can also add your own score system to the mission.


Get the CooP function working properly then the online campaign wars can start also.

CoD don't need any old system to make a campaign war.

The posibilities with scripts are there, and are nearly endless. But, as I said, if you don't want/don't know how to use your own scripts, and also you don't want to use any other people scripts, that's a different thing...


So if you want the old 1946 coop menu I'm ok and even agree with that. But please people don't say that you can't play cooperative missions right now. That's absolutely false.

[5./JG27.Farber]

But I don't know what the devs did, but from my own experience with the game, if you have a uber beast plus of a system, it will run.



buy a new PC. straight up. That is the answer the latest games have given to every gamer experiencing frame by frame action on the new hotness game they are into.

I don't agree with it, but thats the way it is. We just have to roll with it. Is there a way to change it so it isn't so. Yes. But are you willing to give up everything to make that your quest? When it might just be easier to just go with it?


Its just accepting things are the way they are. , like some people throw away expensive cars and yachts the way a middle class yuppie throws away half ful starbux coffee . . .


But it crashes to desk top... No matter what PC you have after so long, anywhere from 5 - 50 mins, online it will crash which seriously affects coop, dogfights, and campaigns... As was said before this is effecting units that play online together and bringing down other peoples hard work.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

I agree with alpha, coop is the only form of multiplayer that draws me in and keeps me interested in almost any games I play. The old IL-2 interface might be archaic by todays standards but at least it was functional and did the job. Here's for hoping for a better coop interface/implementation in future patches/expansions/add-ons/sequels or whatever they'll be called.
For those who remember IL-2, they will remember mission makers requesting more and More and MORE FMB control

1C's answer to that request was to include the ability to run C# scripts

Now you know if CoD had the same FMB that IL-2 had.. The current crop of threads complaing about having to learn C# would be replaced by thread complaing abuot how CoD's FMB provides no more control that IL-2's FMB

So once again, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't!

While on the subject, it would have been great if 1C could have provided both the old and the new.. But in light of the fact that 1C did not provide both, it is safe to conclude that to provide more they had to re-do the whole system, and found it too costly to provide both the old and the new..

Dam real world constraints of time and money! ;)

[KG26_Alpha]

CoD does have the same FMB as IL2 has just with some extra stuff.



Look the problem isnt making coops scripted or not................. its the CooP GUI and the way CoD handles the missions.

I'm not going further with this as the same blah blah script this script that comes up every time .............. you cannot script your way out of the fact the the CooP GUI is non-existent in CoD at present.

Start battle starts the mission and pilots have to catch up to the mission whilst still arming etc etc...............thats a moving dogfight :rolleyes:



Further discussion should be directed here >> http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27934

This thread off topic by a light year as it is :)

[TheGrunch]

<snip>So if you want the old 1946 coop menu I'm ok and even agree with that. But please people don't say that you can't play cooperative missions right now. That's absolutely false.
That's all very nice, but most of us didn't buy the game to continue programming the multiplayer UI for the developers, we were all rather expecting that the basics would be down and C# scripting would be a cheeky bonus for advanced users rather than a compulsory step for half-decent coop play. I don't go to a restaurant and order steak with peppercorn sauce, then expect the chef to bring me a raw steak with some lovely peppercorn sauce in a jug, and then hand me a pan and apron and tell me to "get on with it then!"

[Skoshi Tiger]

I don't go to a restaurant and order steak with peppercorn sauce, then expect the chef to bring me a raw steak with some lovely peppercorn sauce in a jug, and then hand me a pan and apron and tell me to "get on with it then!"

We used to have semi-outdoor BBQ restaurant where I lived where they did just that. It's not for everyone, But the place was packed with groups of people milling around the BBQ's, drinking beers, most of summer nights.

Different strokes for different folks, and you couldn't complain to the Chief! ;)

Cheers!