Answers to Community Questions

[luthier]

Good afternoon everyone. Sorry it took so long to get to your questions. Finally got some spare time on a quiet weekend. Went through a bunch of them, still have a lot left. Hopefully will get to them tomorrow.

I also answered a bunch of Russian-language questions on sukhoi.ru. Sorry, no energy to translate them into English. Hopefully someone might help me out and provide a translation for me.
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=77332&p=1902572#post1902572

Here are the answers to your questions.

The single player experience in Cliffs of Dover has been roundly criticized as being decidedly below standard. Can you tell us specifically in what ways you think it is lacking, and explain what you intend to do to improve it?

First of all, I disagree with it being “below standard”. Your definition of single-player standard is probably different from mine. If you expect Mass Effect or Skyrim, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Cliffs of Dover was intended to be a sandbox game more than anything, expansive, open, giving complete freedom to the players. If you’ll remember, the original Il-2 owed much of its success to user-made content. We aimed for the same with Cliffs of Dover. Instead of building complex single-player content in-house, we gave the tools to the community. Cliffs of Dover has a much better mission builder with scripting support, supports complex moddable briefings and debriefings, and so on.
Unfortunately 3rd party support never materialized the way we hoped it would, and we ourselves cannot at this point go back and redo single player.
Still, I strongly disagree with your criticism of the single-player. The two campaigns, quick mission builder, and the full mission builder offer a lot in terms of single-player. Standard? I’ve played plenty of AAA games where the entire single-player content is under 20 hours with 0 replay value, and I didn’t even feel like finishing the entire thing. At the same time I’ve logged way more than 20 hours in quick mission builder alone. What does that say about industry standards?


1. Please could you look into the netcode, its killing Multiplayer servers.

Latest patch should take us closer.

2. Could you reconsider your position on Co-ops, again this is preventing a lot of people from wanting to continue using your product now and in the future.

Redoing co-op is a huge task. We are a business. We have to make a profit somewhere somehow. We cannot keep pumping resources and releasing free patches for Cliffs of Dover forever.
And regarding not using our products in the future if we do not redo co-op now. I believe the majority in this community actually will. If we offer a much more comprehensive co-op experience in a future product, and especially if such an experience still allows you a trip back in time to fly some Spits and 109s over the Channel, well, I really hope that most people will want to get the sequel.
To reiterate - I've never said that we'll never address co-op, I've only said we cannot do it within the Cliffs of Dover project.

3. It was claimed that within recent patches a 50% performance increase was gained but as of yet I have seen no evidence to support this, in fact my performance actually dropped whilst at the same time features were taken out of the game. Could you tell me how I go about getting this performance increase or what system I should use to get the best out of CLOD, I currently have a i72600k running at 4.7Ghz, 2x GTX680 in SLI and 16GB of DDR3 at 1600mhz.

There are plenty of people on the forums reporting a significant performance boost.
You should be getting excellent FPS in the game with your top of the line system.

4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.

Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

Can the sequel be merged with COD like the original il2 series and if it can will we get to test features that will be appearing in the sequel I.e. Weather etc.
This question Ilya! Please confirm that the sequel will be able to be merged with our current game as in all previous IL2 releases.

Definitely not planning to release any sequel features as add-ons for Cliffs of Dover, sorry.

Also, please, please introduce a coop mode similar to the one we had in IL2 as you are loosing potential sales without this!

As I said earlier, this just doesn’t make sense financially. Redoing co-op in the way that the community wants cannot possibly be profitable within Cliffs of Dover. At this point there’s just no way that any given feature can lead to any kind of profits.

How many people are there working on IL-2 Sturmovik series now?

Slightly over 50.

Why were the Flyable G50 and Br20 modelled for CoD, when they only played a very minimal role, and more common aircraft left out, such as a flyable Do17 and indeed even the CR42?
Was it originally intended to move to the Med theatre after the BoB?[/quote]

I was not a part of the decision making process about any flyable aircraft in Cliffs of Dover so I cannot answer this question.

Have you addressed the bugged Mixture issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the Engine Overheat issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the issue of the Spitfire under performing in terms of relative top speed compared with the 109 (e.g. see graphs in 1st post in this recent thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115)? Thank you.

We keep working on aircraft performance, and hopefully the most recent patch showed some improvement in that respect.

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?
after 1,5 years, there is still too much confusion about the different types of planes, and how they perform the best way,and how to get the most out of them.
For example every month there is another thread about the prop pitch management of the 109, and even among the experienced 109pilots there doesnt seem to be a consensus on whats the best way...
for example: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34328
there is historical information around in the net and in books, but we dont know whats implemented in game, what works best, and how it is intended to work...

Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea.

1. Can you tell us anything about the forthcoming sequel and where you intend to take the series after that?

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.

2. Do you consider that you've achieved about as much as you can, performance wise, with the game engine at the moment and that people's systems now have to be improved to improve performance?

Yes, we’re pretty of the same opinion. We’re not doing further optimization at this time, we’re improving features instead. Specifically landscape geometry and clouds for starters, but all that is for the sequels.

1. Is going to be more view distance whitouut touching much the performance? I think in the first versions the view dstance was more.

It’s really hard to compare versions, too much has changed. I’m not sure if we can do anything to drastically improve performance as related to view distance at this time, sorry.

1. Why was Clod released (in the condition it was in)?

We had to release on the announced release date. Never any question about that on any levels.

2. Have you had serious problems re-writing the various code routines?

As clearly shown by some of our beta patches in the past, no, of course not, why would you ever think that?

3. Do you still have some of the original engine coders?

Yes. We even still have the core of the original 2001 Il-2 team working on the products.

4. Do you have anybody responsible for 'gameplay?' - serious question.

Yes, but not with Cliffs of Dover at this time. Honest answer.

5. Do you think releases (both game and patches) have been handled competently?

Well, it was either test with the community, or keep the patches brewing internally with tests taking much longer. If we had done this, the community would have imploded months ago being torn between the latest conspiracy theory of us closing down, and screams of "where's the promised patch give it to us now show us your progress".

6. Do you think the strong criticisms of Clod, on a forum such as this, are fair and reasonable?

I do think that people that post on the forums are naturally much more passionate and particular about the game than the average player. I do believe that we deserve most of the criticism that we get, if not always the tone in which it is offered. So, that covers fair.
Whether it’s reasonable is a more complex question to answer. The vocal minority always claims (and sincerely believes) that they represent the silent majority. We have our own opinion of what the silent majority wants however, and that often clashes with the forum consensus. At other times forum criticism can be unreasonable simply because some forum posters just don’t understand the simple realities of running a business.
So, in short, forum criticism is almost always fair, but not always reasonable.

1. will this game ever run good on windows xp using dx9? 'good' defined as 30 avg fps on black death track.

That’s quite an interesting way to define “good” performance. Black Death was never intended as a 30 FPS benchmark goal. It was rather intended as an extreme way to bring any system to its knees.
Just upgrade to Win 7, please.

2. will you ever consider getting rid of steam and going to hyper-lobby format?

No.

3. what pc components, drivers, supporting software...etc. do you now recommend to run the game optimally, given so much of the code has changed since original release date since the game was first spec'd out.

I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, sorry

4. was the epilipsy filter a fraud? honestly, it was so absurd. very hard to believe in hindsight.

No that was indeed a real situation, a real publisher requirement, and our desperate attempt to address it at the last second.

5. surprise, did you know that B6 doesn't even like CLOD?

Why would that be a surprise? I know very few people that, you know, love love Cliffs of Dover.

6. did you hire any of the Daidalos Team member to work on CLOD when you put out those help wanted advertisements a while back?

We need full time employees in our Moscow office. Most of our current employees only speak Russian, so new employees have to be fluent in Russian as well. I’m not aware of anyone at Daidalos who fits all those criteria.

7. will the final patch include moving dogfight server and rearm, refuel and repair capability?

Of course not, who ever said that it would?

8. after the final patch, where do we go to join 128 player battles online?

We don’t run our own servers if that’s what you ask.

9. why did oleg leave? the real reason.

The only person who should ever answer this question is Oleg himself.

10. if you could do it all over again, would you?

Yes, just differently.

Have you seen how many times the same questions are asked, and if so
Why are they not being answered unambiguously, or a way that appears deceptive?
Why is there so much emphasis placed on the sequels process when most want CoD fixed?

Because we’re a business. Our goal is to make money. Fixing Cliffs of Dover does not bring in any money, and it has not pretty much from the start. Even if we spend another year working on nothing but Cliffs of Dover and release a super-mega-ultra update with co-op, blackjack, and hookers, how many copies do you honestly believe the game will sell?
Then the entire team can happily go and look for a new job, preferably in a third world country where it’ll be easier to hide from our investors.

Can you please open the game up to third parties and modders to fix.
The game has amazing potential, but is obviously quite broken at the moment.

This has always been our plan, and we still cannot get around to it. We obviously cannot just release the source code, and making end-user tools is not something that we have the resources to do at the moment. This fact greatly upsets me.

Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?

(blows a raspberry).

My questions would be all about the main map itself (many others are pointing out all the other issues, no need to add anything there) but they would need elaboration and this is not the place. So I will be short:
1. As a matter of principle would you be OK with one or two "communities" (actually myself and some others) working to correct the many flaws, lacks, incoherences, wrongs, missing elements etc of the MAIN map, under your control, when it is possible (even if still far away, the work itself will take probably more than one year anyway)?
2. An idea when this could happen (granted as long as it is not "never" the question is rather rhetorical...I suspect the answer)?

See above about tools. Map-making tools are number one on our list of end-user tools to release, whenever it is we’ll be able to.

1. What specifically is preventing clouds from being depicted in a volume and quality that is competitive with other sims currently on the market?

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?
Because I know there isn’t.

2. What is your assessment of the quality of current AI speech routines. What if anything do you intend to do to improve them in the future?

AI speech does less than half of what we wanted it to do for Cliffs of Dover. Unfortunately the person responsible for the task left without completing it and we’re still trying to pick up the pieces.

Will the sequel have AI comms that work properly and have a level of detail/available commands that is closer to what we had in IL-1946 series. Offline play in even the exceptionally good Desastersoft campaigns is badly stifled by the extremely limited AI comms system we are stuck with in Cliffs.

Yes it will.

Will it ever be possible to add collisions to trees?

This murders FPS. We have too many trees.
We can only do it on a map that’s not as tree-y as the Channel.

1. Can we ever expect authentic looking cloud cover and weather environments that actually effect gameplay?

That’s what we’re working on right now, for the sequel.

2. Lastly has there been any progress on making the AI work and fly like we would expect or are we stuck with either barrel rolls or no reaction at all?

It already does a lot more than barrel rolls or no reaction.

1. How do you expect your current business model to deliver a profit while using the traditional il-2, addon every 2-3 years approach, and do you plan to offer DLC content in the future?

Add-ons every 2-3 years has never been our business model, and we've evolved even further away from Il-2 lately.

2. Why are weathering layers of skins unable to be packed in such a way that they can be modified or improved by users?

We hated seeing horrible flat user-made skins everywhere in the original Il-2, so we settled on the technology that keeps the lower-end of the quality bar firmly set where no user effort can nudge it lower – even if that means also setting the ceiling for great skin makers.

1. Are the team hoping to continue the series (all being well) as was mentioned earlier in the development cycle?

Yes

2. Are you going to be in a position to give the planned overdue announcement regarding future development’s any time soon?

I hope so.

Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.

We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.

1. Is it possible to expand on the not before seen special feature that was mentioned? Will it come for the sequel or will it not come out now?

Sequel

2. Any news on how the vehicle control will be implemented? Will that ship with the sequel?

We still don’t know what to do with the feature commercially.

1. Is it save to say that the the sequel will, besides adding new content, fix all major gameplay, graphic ,multiplayer issues we currently have?


Since I fear we may differ on our definitions of major issues, I’d rather not commit myself to that.
Obviously no one here wants to repeat the Cliffs of Dover release fiasco. We really do want to get it right next time.

2. Will there be a solid documentation for engine management, level bombing etc.?

We are planning for an in-flight checklist feature, for starters.

3. What happend to the offical announcement for the sequel?

Delayed due to external circumstances. Not under my control at all.

4. Is someone still working on improving and/or adding new/better sounds?

Yes, that’s our sound designer’s only job.

You said earlier:'we really want to release at least the map-making SDK to the public “as is”, which is why they’re not covered by the next patch v. sequels discussion.'
If this is released will it be possible for an organised community effort to improve certain elements of the main COD map or will the sdk be only for creating new small maps?

Yes, the SDK will allow people to edit existing maps.

As you probably know quite a few people are disappointed with the current map and feel it could be made better by making changes to tree coverage/ hedgerows/etc. These would not be difficult changes technically, but would be time consuming and labour intensive - and therefore ideal for talented community members to undertake whilst the developers focus on the sequel (almost like a Team Daidolos for COD).
If the choice is between NO further work on the map OR allowing an (organised) community effort to make improvements (with your final approval regarding quality) would you be agreeable to this happening?

See above.

Videos from the Igromir pre-release version of COD seem to show a better implementation of the map. Were changes made after Igromir for performance reasons, and if so can those changes be easily reversed?

The entire year before the release is really hazy for me. I cannot say what changes were made to the map after Igromir. I want to say it shipped largely the same. If anything, we might have reduced the number of smaller trees and bushes around the landscape to improve performance, and adding them back would be a quick, fatal fix.

May I expect a sequel including a comprehensive manual for the DM, FM, FMB, including scripting?

Probably not comprehensive enough. See our manuals for the old Il-2 products.

Can you comment at this time on whether the next sequel will be Moscow as previously stated, whether Stalingrad will be a separate sequel to follow, or how the MMO option will fit into the series?

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.

2. How about flak control? it's for the sequel?

Yes, not for Cliffs of Dover.

I'd be interested to know if you've addressed the aircraft visibility (or invisibility) issue? IMO, the problem has all but killed the game. Whatever the reason for it, it doesn't really work in a simulation. You simply can't shoot what you can't see.

We hope it’s been addressed with the latest patch.

Precisely how many separate projects does Maddox Games intend to work on at one time? Is the rumoured MMO to be developed by MG also?

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.
Do want to add however that the occasional rumors that pop up around here simply mystify me. Why would anyone go through the trouble of doing all that? Lame and so very very creepy.

Luthier, will you continue to support CLOD independently with updates 'AFTER' the release of a sequel?

No. As I stated previously, this current patch, once pushed out to steam, will be our final update to Cliffs of Dover proper. All future work will be done within the framework of the sequels.

1. Why are there no plans to sort the problem of not being able to use the main componant of this game (the Channel Map) for coops?

Please see above.

2. Will the terrible weathering on Allied aircraft be fixed?

It’s not terrible.

Hello Luthier, my question is simple, shall have we the correction of the bug of rear-view mirrors on the English planes for the next patch.

We “almost” got it into the release candidate, but decided not to delay it because of the mirrors. Really hoping to get it working for the final release.

1. Will dev fix the pop up trees and buildings or provide greater view distance for people with high end cards?
2. Why do you have pop up buildings and not fade in.
People in bombers can't fly higher than 3'000m because targets pop up seconds before they must drop bombs.

We are aware of the issue, especially in relation to bombers.

When will you fix the service ceilings in aircraft? The 109 is not able to reach 10000 meters. The real ones do.

Please see the most recent patch notes.

You say you are 'not proud' of Cliffs of Dover' and fair enough you should not be.
Will you be offering a discount on the sequel, to people who bought Cliffs of Dover, as an apology?

Seriously?

1. Will the lack of a decent Co-op mode be put right in the patch or the Sequel.

Please see above for my thoughts on co-op.

2. Will the Channel map be available for Co-op in the online mode.

It’s available now.

Are you working on the bombers bombsigths? The german one dont work completely , (the triangle that shows when the bomb drop occur isnt working)

We’ll see if we can get this in. The list of issues is dozens of pages long, and the amount of time to do everything is almost astronomical. We’re tying to prioritize.

I know you stated the next CloD patch will be the last, so that means any fixes, advances and such into the game engine that come from the sequel will not be translated at some time or another back into CloD? Will Clod be completely abandoned in whatever state the final patch leaves it with no hope small updates, etc?

Why would you think that? We’ve never done that before, and I’ve always stated that our plans remain the same. There were many issues in the original IL-2 in 2001. After a few updates to the original, Forgotten Battles was released and there were no more updates to the original Il-2. That doesn’t mean it was abandoned however! You can still play all of the original Il-2 content with 1946, all carried over and updated with the rest of the engine.

Any chance of stopping the trees and their attendant shadows looking like they're having an epileptic fit?

I would think most of the community should know by now that mentioning epilepsy to the team is a very, very bad idea.

If your team cannot fix this first game, and give us what was originally promised/expected, what is there to show us that the new game will be any better, and worth our support, dedication, and more importantly, our money?

Don’t give us your money on day 1.

[Edit] Part II
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=465681&posted=1#post465681

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Thanks for the feedback and info luthier!

[kristorf]

So from what I basically readfrom this is
It's just about as fixed as we can be bothered to fix it (or are capable of) , if you don't like it tough, we want your money???

[droz]

Great read Luthier. Thanks for replying to those questions. Keep up the good work. All the people I regularly play with are very happy with the RC patch, just a couple of things that need attention in our opinion.

Thanks

[SlipBall]

I enjoyed the answers luthier...shed the tree problem after BOM, and head south :-P

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/138621.jpg

[Flanker35M]

S!

Interesting read. Some answers clearly were a snap to the community as community is not always that correctly behaving either. But would like to point out the AI is still crap, worth nothing but be a target drone. Communications are, well as stated, bits and pieces it seems. Planes do still disappear at certain distances or are VERY vague.

For the bomber guys I really hope the "LOD circle" with popping trees and buildings will be fixed as for them it is a pain to align correctly when target is visible like seconds before drop when flying higher up.

I am sure devs want the Battle for "insert Russian town here" be correct and not a CoDish fiasco as if they launch a failcake decipting "great patriotic war" in Russia they will be lynched by the angry mob within a week. Anything related to that era sells there more than weed in a campus :D Look at WoT subscriptions, in Russia 3-4 times than in rest of world.

Anyways..Seems we will be stuck with CoD as it is almost and then waiting for the next installment of the series. If any kind of SDK is released that will help some to revive CoD, if it is comprehensive enough. Thanks for the answers Luthier, awaiting for the next post with answers :)

[arthursmedley]

Thankyou for finding the time to do this Ilya and for your candid answers. Lots of food for thought here. Will be looking forward to more of your answers to users questions and looking forward to the sequal too.8-)

[MadTommy]

I'm confused. Will CloD & the squeal be merged / compatible? i.e if i buy the sequel will i see its benefits when playing in a BoB scenario.

I'll reserve judgement until the Steam released patch. But it does not sound great, time will tell.

[Freycinet]

Cliffs of Dover was intended to be a sandbox game more than anything, expansive, open, giving complete freedom to the players. If you’ll remember, the original Il-2 owed much of its success to user-made content. We aimed for the same with Cliffs of Dover. Instead of building complex single-player content in-house, we gave the tools to the community. Cliffs of Dover has a much better mission builder with scripting support, supports complex moddable briefings and debriefings, and so on.
Unfortunately 3rd party support never materialized the way we hoped it would, and we ourselves cannot at this point go back and redo single player.

This.

If *several* community members had been more interested in using their talents to contribute rather than to bitch & moan we would have had much more content by now.

In the original Il-2 the campaigns and missions that came with the sim were never impressive. A lot of the work made by the community, however, was fantastic. Sandbox sims give people the freedom to make amazing & complex content, instead of the "on-rails" action you see from most modern games, with zero replay value after the missions that came out of the box are finished.

A year or so after the original Il-2 came out there were already web sites and manuals (made by enthusiasts) on how to use the FMB. Granted, the FMB of CoD is much more complex, but it would really be great if the community would churn out fantastic scripts for it, rather than moaning about the hue of English fields ad nauseam... Just an example.

I myself try to make some positive contribution to the community with my movies (a couple of tutorials in particular). I wish some of the moaners would spend just a tenth of their energy on contributing rather than criticizing, but hey, I realise that isn't fashionable in this day and age...

[Freycinet]

I'm confused. Will CloD & the squeal be merged / compatible? i.e if i buy the sequel will i see its benefits when playing in a BoB scenario.

I'll reserve judgement until the Steam released patch. But it does not sound great, time will tell.

The sequel will incorporate all the CoD content (hopefully improved as per the improvements coming with BoM). So, you get BoM and CoD as well. But it won't install into or on top of CoD.

That's how it worked with Il-2 and its sequel Il-2FB. FB had all the content of Il-2 + Finland and Hungary.

[Mysticpuma]

Quote:
4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.


Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

(and somebody has no answer for a real question? Why be so bloody disrespectful? It's a real issue and a bug. Your attitude stinks with that answer)


Quote:
2. Have you had serious problems re-writing the various code routines?

As clearly shown by some of our beta patches in the past, no, of course not, why would you ever think that?

(Have you seen this thread? : http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34623

and this one:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34626

and this one:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34643

Just asking)



Quote:
Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?


(blows a raspberry).

(Pathetic answer. Maybe you should go back to posting a music video again? Seriously this is so childish I think you think this community is a joke?)


Quote:
1. What specifically is preventing clouds from being depicted in a volume and quality that is competitive with other sims currently on the market?

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?
Because I know there isn’t.

(Actually, there is one that is substantially better at depicting clouds in volume, density, altitude and realism!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34239 )



Quote:
Precisely how many separate projects does Maddox Games intend to work on at one time? Is the rumoured MMO to be developed by MG also?

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.
Do want to add however that the occasional rumors that pop up around here simply mystify me. Why would anyone go through the trouble of doing all that? Lame and so very very creepy.

(Because we never hear anything from you?)


Quote:
1. Will dev fix the pop up trees and buildings or provide greater view distance for people with high end cards?
2. Why do you have pop up buildings and not fade in.
People in bombers can't fly higher than 3'000m because targets pop up seconds before they must drop bombs.

We are aware of the issue, especially in relation to bombers.

(and you are doing what about it??????????)


Quote:
If your team cannot fix this first game, and give us what was originally promised/expected, what is there to show us that the new game will be any better, and worth our support, dedication, and more importantly, our money?

Don’t give us your money on day 1.

(Agreed.)

[fruitbat]

an interesting read, and amusing in parts as well!

[MadTommy]

The sequel will incorporate all the CoD content (hopefully improved as per the improvements coming with BoM). So, you get BoM and CoD as well. But it won't install into or on top of CoD.

That's how it worked with Il-2 and its sequel Il-2FB. FB had all the content of Il-2 + Finland and Hungary.

Thanks. (I was not a original IL2 player)

[Falstaff]

Luthier, your replies would qualify as a guilty pleasure if you were only a junior developer. As things stand, they are magnificent...a kind of traditional New Orleans jazz funeral dancing down the street, trombones blowing....

Someone please wield the permanent ban-hammer, and swiftly.

(I will check in for your follow-ups, Luthier, just for crash-value. I think I have had more entertainment with these than I ever had with the game).

[Artist]

Luthier,

thank you for the extensive answers, especially on a weekend. It has been a very interesting insight into the ways and means of developing this kind of project (for those capable of reading between the lines ;)). I, for my part, gained a better understanding.

still have a lot left. Hopefully will get to them tomorrow.

Looking forward to it.

Artist

[MadTommy]

Some of these answers are going to make for an entertaining thread.

http://i43.tinypic.com/24n17nm.gif

[bongodriver]

So from what I basically readfrom this is
It's just about as fixed as we can be bothered to fix it (or are capable of) , if you don't like it tough, we want your money???

Yes I read it like that too but with one caveat.......and that is they are not holding a gun to our heads for the money.

I don't think Ilya could have been any more honest, they messed up the release, they spent as much time as was commercially viable to fixing it, if they don't start making commercial successes then there won't be anyone to fix a damned thing in the future.

[MadBlaster]

Hi Luthier. Thanks for answering all of my questions. :cool: You get a good score for that! I also would like to wish you much better luck with the sequel. CLoD, it's water under the bridge. Let's move on and get it done!

[CaptainDoggles]

Definitely not planning to release any sequel features as add-ons for Cliffs of Dover, sorry.

Can you please confirm that the CLOD -> Sequel relationship will NOT be the same relationship as, say, IL2FB and Pacific Fighters?

[Icebear]

As I said earlier, this just doesn’t make sense financially. Redoing co-op in the way that the community wants cannot possibly be profitable within Cliffs of Dover. At this point there’s just no way that any given feature can lead to any kind of profits.

http://www.abload.de/img/obama-boozing-it-up1gybph.jpg

Don’t give us your money on day 1.

Day 1 ? Never ever Luthier !

Your arrogance and complete ignorance towards the community will end the series. Good Job!

Over n out !

[ACE-OF-ACES]

an interesting read, and amusing in parts as well!Not as amusing as those who still don't understand the purpose of a BETA patch and therefor having a hissyfit about some of the answers ;)

[luthier]

Luthier, your replies would qualify as a guilty pleasure if you were only a junior developer. As things stand, they are magnificent...a kind of traditional New Orleans jazz funeral dancing down the street, trombones blowing....

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

[SlipBall]

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.



I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.


Well speaking for myself, I enjoy the sim very much for my off-line use of it. Lots of pimples, but still there is a lot there to enjoy.

[Icebear]

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Your are kidding, don't you? Who is responsible for this? Your customers, the community?

[MadTommy]

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Fair play.. can't be more honest than that. Hope the future is fruitful for all.

[EAF92_Brigstock]

But you got so close with the last patch....

This new one shows lots of promise too. It just needs a little more care.

I pre-ordered Cliffs of Dover but ended up buying the Russian version too, when it came out, just so I could get a first look. I bought the game twice, because I wanted it so much. To see it finally coming together just as the plug is pulled is heart breaking.

I sincerely hope the RC gets the bugs in it fixed for the steam release. Especially as the last Beta patch brought in so many of the game owners who had given up on it ever coming good.
That includes myself and at least a dozen of my Squad mates. I'd not be surprised to see that reaction from across the entire customer spectrum.

[Kurfürst]

Regarding trees, I understand that there are way too many trees on the map to make them collidable. That was so since the original Il-2 beta, and was decided there. It was also not much a concern, given the maps were mostly for Russian steppes.

However, I am curious if collideable trees could be done (limited) within the near vicinity of airfields, where they may make a role?

[jimbop]

Luthier, are you guys reading the bug thread or do you know what needs to be fixed for the release patch?

[MusseMus]

Well speaking for myself, I enjoy the sim very much for my off-line use of it. Lots of pimples, but still there is a lot there to enjoy.

+1

I really really love this sim and even though some things are still broken I have a great time with it. I spent some 400 hours of playing it. I payed some 20 £ for it=what I pay for beer on a wednesday night out. A product that gives me the same pleasure as beer for 1/100 of the cost can't be bad! :grin:

Thank you for honest answers Luthier! :cool:

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, Battle of Britain was a major battle in WW2 and especially to Brits and it's allies it was a show of strength and determination. It had large scale aerial battles all over southeast England and ultimately over London. It decided the fate of Britain and possibly outcome of WW2. So no wonder some members might be a "bit" pissed off when CoD came out in a state it was in and now the sequel decipting Great Patriotic War with features CoD will never see, adds to the insult. Does it warrant rudeness? No, but no need to go with the crowd and dish out more rudeness ;)

Anyways interesting info filtered out there from the intended puns and all. Bring on the next series of answers.

[jimbop]

I fully agree with the concept of providing the tools the community needs to make their own content rather than trying to build it all yourself.

There are some solid reasons as to why this did not happen for CoD - hopefully these will be fixed in the sequel or the result will be exactly the same.

Aside from the game play bugs I'm thinking FMB documentation, FMB bugs, huge disconnect between FMB and what actually happens online and coop (please don't underestimate the importance of this again).

[Kwiatek]

Have you addressed the bugged Mixture issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the Engine Overheat issues in the RAF types?
Have you addressed the issue of the Spitfire under performing in terms of relative top speed compared with the 109 (e.g. see graphs in 1st post in this recent thread http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34115)? Thank you.


We keep working on aircraft performance, and hopefully the most recent patch showed some improvement in that respect.

Sry Luthier but performacne and FM of CLoD fighters still is crap. I checked british fighters with beta RC and they are still too slow ab. 20-30 mph (like before) at the deck not mention high alts flying. 109 was too slow in CLOD at ab 20-30 kph but British fighters are too slow much more -20-30 mphs ( 32- 48 kph).

Make correct low level speeds and you will get more accurate high alts speeds - that its work in old Il2.

You really need make it better.

[kendo65]

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Thanks for the honest answers Luthier, and for covering the questions about the map.

Can I say regarding the bolded bit from your quote above that I disagree somewhat. For sure some here will be hostile no matter what you do. Others, myself included, sometimes feel that poor communication needlessly creates antagonism - eg the delay in providing answers to these questions. A simple post on the forum saying they were delayed but upcoming would have been enough to smooth things over until they were ready.

Some of us who want to be supportive feel that the (lack of) communication here is sometimes more damaging than the issues with the game.

If that could be improved i think people would feel more involved and on your side.

----

Regarding your reply about tree collision only being possible on maps with small numbers of trees! Is this not a reason to review the use of Speedtree in the COD series in favour of an alternative that can be made to work more effectively?

[MusseMus]

Quote:
Sry Luthier but performacne and FM of CLoD fighters still is crap. I checked british fighters with beta RC and they are still too slow ab. 20-30 mph (like before) at the deck not mention high alts flying. 109 was too slow in CLOD at ab 20-30 kph but British fighters are too slow much more -20-30 mphs ( 32- 48 kph).

Make correct low level speeds and you will get more accurate high alts speeds - that its work in old Il2.

You really need make it better.

The speed gauge is showing the wrong IAS speed on all aircrafts I tested. The brit fighters show a value some 15% lower than they accualy go. The gauge in the 109 is better and only show some 5% a lower value. So the problem is not so much the aircraft's performance but the IAS gauge

[ACE-OF-ACES]

So the problem is not so much the aircraft's performance but the IAS gauge
Agreed based on what I have seen thus far, the world cord (Z_) values are closer to the real world values than the indicated (I_) values.. Where the indicated values are the values used to drive the guages.

[CaptainDoggles]

Definitely not planning to release any sequel features as add-ons for Cliffs of Dover, sorry.

Really need an answer to this. Are you saying that CLOD and the Sequel will not merge together the way Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters did?

[jimbop]

Really need an answer to this. Are you saying that CLOD and the Sequel will not merge together the way Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters did?

I guess we'll have access to the CoD maps and aircraft in the sequel. What else matters? I wouldn't miss the interface.

[Continu0]

Some really disapointing things (see Mysticpumas post) which shouldn´t come in such a tone...

Some honesty on the other side...

Better make that sequel good.

[Tree_UK]

Luthier, your recent RC patch has done nothing towards fixing the netcode, please fly online one night yourself and try it, I know the game is depressing but we have to put up with why dont you have a go, you may learn something.

[Moony]

Luthier, your recent RC patch has done nothing towards fixing the netcode, please fly online one night yourself and try it, I know the game is depressing but we have to put up with why dont you have a go, you may learn something.

LOL TREE, you haven't even logged in to steam or played the game since the patch was released....

Dear oh dear.

Thanks for answering the questions Luthier, its good to see you havent lost your sense of humour. Good luck with the sequel, hope we hear some more about it soon! :D

[Tree_UK]

LOL TREE, you haven't even logged in to steam or played the game since the patch was released....

Dear oh dear.

Thanks for answering the questions Luthier, its good to see you havent lost your sense of humour. Good luck with the sequel, hope we hear some more about it soon! :D

Hi krupi, multiple accounts are ban worthy, and why tell such a blatent lie?? It wasn't me who banned you.

[BRIGGBOY]

i cant say that i am happy about this situation as i am not. but if buying BOM wil get CLOD to where it should be then i will. maybe if you released them the other way round this could of been prevented

[Moony]

Hi krupi, multiple accounts are ban worthy, and why tell such a blatent lie?? It wasn't me who banned you.

Its not a lie at all "mate" just pointing out a simple fact, haha love it go hide under a rock you have just been rumbled... :o

[JTDawg]

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

luthier Thanks for being a man. an finally answering some QaA. HOPEFULLY we can get the major bugs out of the way. With the RC patch , but this one did not hit the mark ie planes not starting etc . We all know the amount of bugs an problems , BUT will also give you credit for some things ie. some sounds sky sun dot distance etc. some very good steps foreward , still a ways to go . I do believe alot of the problems could have stopped alot sooner if you would have posted. Even the guys that go over the top must think there is still something here ! or why the passion in thier posts? But we really need planes that will start . It is killing the game . I accept your apology But man you got to get it right . 10 mins. of your time verses 15 pages of spewing venom .

[Tree_UK]

There are plenty of people on the forums reporting a significant performance boost.
You should be getting excellent FPS in the game with your top of the line system


Yes I agree I should be, but because of your terrible product I get incredible slow downs whenever i fly though smoke, dust particles, clouds or come across more than a few aircraft, you once announced that fixing these issues was just 3 days work, obviously that was far beyond your team capabities, in fact 19 months since release most of the bugs seem to be beyond your capabilitis. Good luck with your sequel you are going to desperatly need it.

[Tree_UK]

Its not a lie at all "mate" just pointing out a simple fact, haha love it go hide under a rock you have just been rumbled... :o

Krupi, you got banned nothing to do with me, deal with it.

[fruitbat]

Yes I agree I should be, but because of your terrible product I get incredible slow downs whenever i fly though smoke, dust particles, clouds or come across more than a few aircraft, you once announced that fixing these issues was just 3 days work, obviously that was far beyond your team capabities, in fact 19 months since release most of the bugs seem to be beyond your capabilitis. Good luck with your sequel you are going to desperatly need it.

With this latest patch, i'm getting rock stable and more importantly smooth fps for the first time, no more Clod shuffle.....

from my point of view/hardware, gfx wise its pretty much there.

[Tree_UK]

With this latest patch, i'm getting rock stable and more importantly smooth fps for the first time, no more Clod shuffle.....

from my point of view/hardware, gfx wise its pretty much there.

So no dramatic slow down through clouds/dust particles and smoke?? No fps dropping to single figures when zooming in on aircraft online?

[GF_Mastiff]

yea' but now there seems to be texture lod issues again with the 109s disappearing when 300 meters away either this is modeling issue or texture

planes are causing micro stutters when they get near my plane

Spits won't start

Hurricanes won't start

throttle settings are incorrect

Boost scale is way off

Single player customization ammo load outs are not working

objects and horizon are visible through the cockpits again

objects are visible through the terrain and clouds

now if those were fixed, I think 95% of us would be happy with it.

[fruitbat]

So no dramatic slow down through clouds/dust particles and smoke?? No fps dropping to single figures when zooming in on aircraft online?

not that i've noticed yet.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Could have

Could have

Could have

Write a hundred lines please.

There is no such expression as 'Could of'

Which bloody schools did you lot go to anyway???

Good bloody Grief.

[Dano]

Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?

(blows a raspberry).

Really? what was so damn offensive about that question that you had to be so rude in reply?

[GF_Mastiff]

Really? what was so damn offensive about that question that you had to be so rude in reply?

the in game UI you need to set AA to 4x

In the Video UI set your user proflie AA to 2x

That how you fix that.

[kendo65]

Could have

Could have

Could have

Write a hundred lines please.

There is no such expression as 'Could of'

Which bloody schools did you lot go to anyway???

Good bloody Grief.

:grin:

[arthursmedley]

Some of us who want to be supportive feel that the (lack of) communication here is sometimes more damaging than the issues with the game.

If that could be improved i think people would feel more involved and on your side.

----



Very, very good point.

[MadBlaster]

Here is a very sad video on the story of the Kee Bird. For those who need "closure".:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxbipBu7Cdc

[Dano]

the in game UI you need to set AA to 4x

In the Video UI set your user proflie AA to 2x

That how you fix that.

Funny, I tested with AA off in both and still got a significant FPS drop when takeoff dust kicked up.

[JG26_EZ]

Very, very sad news re: trees :(

How can we have trees in old IL2, and not in the new IL2 is beyond me.

Maybe we should stop them from swaying in the wind??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

[Feathered_IV]

Quote:
The single player experience in Cliffs of Dover has been roundly criticized as being decidedly below standard. Can you tell us specifically in what ways you think it is lacking, and explain what you intend to do to improve it?

"First of all, I disagree with it being “below standard”. Your definition of single-player standard is probably different from mine. If you expect Mass Effect or Skyrim, you’re barking up the wrong tree."

I am most certainly Not looking for Mass Effect or Skyrim. That is absurd. I am however looking for effective AI, working comms, AI crew members that behave and interact realistically - navigators who navigate, bomb aimers who aim, plus some sense of what it is to run and maintain a squadron when between missions. Please think about it.

[Ctrl E]

Thanks Luthier. Do not expect to get my money in the future.

Good bye.

[baronWastelan]

Ilya,
Thanks for answering my question, which was really none of my business to know, but you were kind enough to answer anyway.

Also, I am extremely grateful to see the clouds' shadows in the RC patch. Best of luck with the sequel!

[Sternjaeger II]

What a bloody joke.

Luthier, allow me to say that your attitude is not justifiable in any way shape or form, as a manager, as someone who's passionate about flight sims and as a man.

You failed to deliver a complete product, you conned most of us into believing that things would have been fixed, and now you're basically saying "hey this is what it is, so just take it and wait for the next chapter" which most of us don't even care for, since it's a theatre of action that honestly appeals just one market, the Russian one.

No matter how smart you might feel, the reality is that you've done a great deal of damage to the work that Oleg made over the years, building up a fan base and interacting, even arguing, with people, to deliver a good sim. You haven't been able to use the vast resources (50 people!) that you had to make a complete, half decent job, how can you even begin to justify that?

It was just a botched job, and your "sandbox" explanation doesn't just work(sandbox based on what, on a product that's not even stable for everybody??), not after all the time we had to wait, not after seeing more and more people getting disheartened and moving on. I'm sorry, but you really failed as a leader of such an important project for the IL-2 Sturmovik series, and even if you think people will get back for the new chapter, it still remains that you betrayed the good faith of most of us by delivering a half finished, buggy job on such an important aerial warfare scenario.

I don't really have much else to say, I knew this day would have come, I hope you all the best for the future, but rest assured you won't be seeing a penny from me anymore, and I surely won't do you any good publicity.

You've damaged your best asset, your customers, don't ever forget it.

[5./JG27.Farber]

Fight fire with fire? :-P

For all those people who complain heavily... if there was no IL2 future, would you have won? Would you benifit from the poor performance of IL2:Clod? Would we do without IL2 as a future? What we you all go on to in the future without a WWII combat flight sim?

RoF? - Not WWII
DCS? - Only two aircraft?

It might not be 100% But what else is there? Either you support it and it grows or... Train simulator?

[ClipWing]

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Well said. The original post was very welcome also. Looking forward to your next one. Also, as an off-line player, I have good FPS and don't expereience many of the problems discussed in this forum, so have found this sim most enjoyable. Looking forward to the sequel.

[Sternjaeger II]

Fight fire with fire? :-P

For all those people who complain heavily... if there was no IL2 future, would you have won? Would you benifit from the poor performance of IL2:Clod? Would we do without IL2 as a future? What we you all go on to in the future without a WWII combat flight sim?

RoF? - Not WWII
DCS? - Only two aircraft?

It might not be 100% But what else is there? Either you support it and it grows or... Train simulator?

Well, apart for the fact that one's life shouldn't gravitate around this, it still remains that the end product was a botched job and we've been feed bs for more than a year, don't you agree? You feel it's the right thing to keep on feeding the same machine if some things don't change?

I'm not questioning the potential here, I'm questioning the very very poor managing and comms that sent all this wonderful potential wasted. My concern is not in the skills of the team, but on the managing, obviously something hasn't worked somewhere, and in any professional environment when something gets screwed up it's the managers that get roasted.
If the managing issue is not solved, you might still see the same issues happening with the future products.

As per alternatives, I tell you what, I'm having a way more rewarding experience flying with the modded IL-2 1946 at the moment, cos those underdog modding guys are s******g diamonds for free.

[ATAG_Snapper]

luthier Thanks for being a man. an finally answering some QaA. HOPEFULLY we can get the major bugs out of the way. With the RC patch , but this one did not hit the mark ie planes not starting etc . We all know the amount of bugs an problems , BUT will also give you credit for some things ie. some sounds sky sun dot distance etc. some very good steps foreward , still a ways to go . I do believe alot of the problems could have stopped alot sooner if you would have posted. Even the guys that go over the top must think there is still something here ! or why the passion in thier posts? But we really need planes that will start . It is killing the game . I accept your apology But man you got to get it right . 10 mins. of your time verses 15 pages of spewing venom .

+1

Hope we get a hotfix patch for:

1) Online Hurricanes not starting. Strong interest in creating an online spawning option for aircraft idling with engines warmed up -- exactly like Single Player/Quick Missions/Cross Country. Would reproduce realistic Battle of Britain scenario where it was the mechanics starting the engines at 3:30 a.m. while the BoB pilots were being awakened by their batmen with steaming cups of hot tea. Thet NEVER spent 5 minutes starting up and warming their engines during a scramble. There was a war on!

2) Spitfire 1a_100 octane and Spitfire 2a engines losing power, sputtering, wild rpm swings at 18,000 feet. Possibly same with Hurricane MK 1_100 octane as well. Mixture problem? Don't know but needs urgent fixing.

3) SLI support. SLI users report CTD unless SLI disabled.

I'm hoping that a quick "hotfix" patch could be released ASAP for, to many players, are gamestoppers with this beta 1.09 Release Candidate.

[Sternjaeger II]

but hey you know what? Who am I telling this to? I said it months ago that this fix would have happened nor the product would have been finished, cos all the signs were there and all the people in good faith here kept on dissing my opinion and the one of other skeptical folks like me.

It's called denial, and it's the same denial that brought Luthier to this sorry state.

I'm saying this now, 1st October 2012, CoD won't ever be fixed, not even after the release of the new sim, and just like this one, the new one will have loads of bugs, because by the way Luthier explained things, it really sounds like the whole game engine is just a bit patched up, unstable mess that is not giving the hoped results in terms of FM.

But hey, feel free to say I'm wrong, cos I'm actually the first one to say I hope I am! So far ALL my predictions happened though, let's not forget that while to most of us this is a hobby, some here are making a living out of it, and if you look at it under a professional point of view it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that things are going really bad at Maddox Games.

I hate myself for having to write this, cos I followed and supported this sim from the very beginning, I was probably the first person to play it in Italy and to create the first Italian community, and I ALWAYS vouched for it, but since the change in the line managing things have gone bad.

Some people should just step down and change job, not only because they lack skills, but because they really need to work on their attitude, as a professional and as a businessman dealing with customers.

That's it, I'm done with this topic.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Plea to the moderators;

Sternjaeger has come out of the pilot's lounge. It can only be downhill from here.

Please, in the interests of good manners and decorum, close this thread before it gets ugly.

I thank you profusely.

[banned]

Here is a very sad video on the story of the Kee Bird. For those who need "closure".:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxbipBu7Cdc
Wow. Thanks for posting that mate. How devastated would you be. I couldn't believe the ending.
I appreciate the relevance too mate. Just hope it's not as dramatic. :)

[Sternjaeger II]

Plea to the moderators;

Sternjaeger has come out of the pilot's lounge. It can only be downhill from here.

Please, in the interests of good manners and decorum, close this thread before it gets ugly.

I thank you profusely.

I said I'm done with this topic,it's your childish post that is bringing things down. There was nothing rude about my post,just the opinion of a customer and former fan. Rest assured this thread will be locked soon anyway.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I don't really have much else to say.

Well, apart for the fact that one's life shouldn't gravitate around this,

I said I'm done with this topic.

but hey I'm saying this now, But hey, feel free to say I'm wrong, That's it, I'm done with this topic.

That's a lot of effort for a bloke who doesn't give a 'hoot'.

But hey, and hey again, thanks for the enlightenment. but shouldn't you be arguing with 'raaaid'?

[ATAG_Bliss]

Thanks for the responses, Luthier.

I still see many people are upset over this. I've gotten my enjoyment out of this for the price I paid for the sim easily 100x over. This sim has completely ruined me for even loading up 46.

I'm glad you addressed the sandbox analogy. That's one of the greatest things the IL2 series does over everyone else in the sim business. You guys really do say "here you go. Now make what you want." Please DON'T EVER CHANGE THAT!! That is why the 46 is still going strong after all these years.

I am more than happy to wait, because I know, given enough time, you guys will get it all sorted out. I'll be one of the 1st in line to buy the sequel. More content and features = I can't wait! I'm guess it will be a good 4-5 years before the ball really rolling and the community really takes off. But the main thought I got about your responses, which should be the main thing on every flight sim enthusiasts mind, is the reassurance that work continues. I know we'll get the BoB included with the Russian front. It seems like the addon's are going to be the same way the old game did (as far as that regards). That is very good.

In the end, all good things come to those that wait. I'm looking forward to it. I'm wish I could see just how many theaters, planes, maps, features, etc.,etc., we'll have in the next 10 years. I'm still confident there's many a good times ahead. And this is about the cheapest entertainment I've ever had, even with all the bugs. Here's hoping the sequel comes out sooner than later.

[Pudfark]

This whole thing/thread reminds of "drunk dialing".
Maybe it's just the bad raspberries?

Certainly, not the time to answer the phone...just pass the berries, back.

That's how I see it.

S~ SternJ This whole process has been like watching a poodle pass a peach seed. Painful, but necessary. :-|

[luthier]

Part II

First of all, I see that my brand of humor offended some people. I forget sometimes that some fans are so passionate about this game they can’t take anything but straight out plain answers, so I’ll answer some of the earlier questions again.

4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.

The entire point of an alpha-beta patch is to TEST things. If an alpha-beta patch had no problems, it wouldn’t be called an alpha-beta patch, it would be called a release patch.
We release these test patches fully aware that a portion of the community will get upset over every issue and blame us for it, but we’re still doing it because it allows us to test our software on a wide range of hardware by a huge number of people, and locate and fix problems much faster than if we test in-house.
Programmers themselves usually do a limited amount of testing, and that’s precisely why it’s always a good idea to have their work tested by other people when they think they’re done. Our other employees are usually far too busy to thoroughly test patches, and external teams of professional testers we have access to are not, you know, simmers and if we test with them we’ll get nowhere near the feedback we get over here.
So, we will continue to use this approach in the future as well.
I just want to add however that if you are one of the people who gets really, really upset when alpha or beta software does not work perfectly then please, please don’t participate in beta tests. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky, I sincerely mean it. Beta tests will always be buggy by definition.

2. Have you had serious problems re-writing the various code routines?

You’ve seen how hard it was for us to redo graphics. AI and radio comms are even worse. Flight models? Nightmare.
The only time redoing a feature turned out well was when we redid the sound engine. Pleasant surprise for everyone.

Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?

Yes, the current particle system still needs a lot of work.

You say you are 'not proud' of Cliffs of Dover' and fair enough you should not be.
Will you be offering a discount on the sequel, to people who bought Cliffs of Dover, as an apology?

I’m not in charge of setting prices in any way. I seriously doubt that any of the people who are responsible for setting prices and distributing the product would ever consider anything like that. If I were to suggest something like this to me they’d look at me with big crazy eyes, quietly walk away, and never speak to me again.

----------------

1. What exactly is the awesome feature never done in a flight sim before you told us about at some point?

Previously answered – can’t reveal yet.

2. What is, or when can we expect to hear the June/July announcement?

Previously answered. Sorry, not my call.

3. Will the radio comms be fully completed and working in the CoD patch? or at the sequel's launch?

Redoing and adding a lot for the sequel.

4. Will the most urgent AI bugs:
- AI not following your radio comm commands
- AI not following you as a flight leader
- AI not considering you a part of their flight
- AI flying straight into terrain
- AI landing procedures
- AI waiting for player warm up (even if they don't have player's CEM, they can be forced to wait for a few mins before starting up)
bugs be fixed for the CoD patch or sequel (which bugs in which patch/release)?

Sorry, sequel.

5. Was sighting ghosts bug fixed and will the fix be included into the CoD patch/BoM sequel?

We hope it’s been fixed in the RC patch. I see some reports that it isn’t, so we’ll start investigating on Monday.

6. Was the netcode looked for, and bugs like flying ships or warping planes fixed for the CoD patch?

See the most recent patch notes.

7. When can we expect to receive a dedicated server?

Dedicated server shipped with the initial release?

8. Will we get own airframe hit visual and sound effects added/bug fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

This is something that we’ll make sure is in the final release patch.

9. Will model LOD/dots transition be fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

We are looking into this, the current situation is unintended.

10. Will model LODS range (like terrain targets not visible even if in a proper distance, and warping out from dot to a big model - ships, buildings and facilities - things which are practically destroying bombing and recon missions) be fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

We won’t address ground object LODs in Cliffs of Dover.

11. Will the aircraft loads GUI be fixed for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

Completely redoing the entire GUI for the sequel.

12. Will working clouds/rain (at least a basic, static, decent weather system) be available back for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

It’s nowhere ready at the moment, so you won’t see it before the sequel is released.

13. Will flickering shadows be fixed for for the CoD patch/BoM sequel (and in which)?

Unfortunately, it’s working is intended at the moment. See most other current gen games.
All our shadows are saved into something called a shadow map, a single shadow texture that is then placed on top of the landscape and other objects. The shadow map is of a standard resolution. The technology often leads to a case where a shadow map pixel is not the same size as a terrain or object pixel underneath it. As the camera moves, the shadow map is redrawn and reapplied, and the mismatched shadow map pixels appear to shift or shimmer. This is especially noticeable with a large amount of small objects.
The only solution is to increase the size of the shadow map, and that leads to a huge performance hit so it's not an option at this time.

14. Why can not the trees be made darker, as they should, by a simple texture modification?

Don’t have an answer.

15. What features were removed from the current engine (due to optimization reasons)? will they be added back into it, and when, please?

Few features were outright removed. The only thing, if I remember correctly, that we had and you guys could not access was player-controllable ground vehicles. Other features may have been modified, shrunk, or not completed to desired specs, but I can’t even remember anything that was cut per se.

Will there be anymore flyable aircraft added to COD in the future?

No.
They’re too expensive to make to release for free, and we can’t possibly hope to make any money selling them as DLC for Cliffs of Dover.

Is the video recording to record the fixed and the outside view in a server with which it is deaktivatet. Because as far as I can remeber me this unfortunately did not work, and so online battles and events on Full Realitic can't be made movies or other video.

It’s working as intended. View settings cannot be changed in a track, otherwise people would just record a track online, quickly play it back on another machine, and see exactly where all the enemy planes are.

When the bug with flight of bombs underground, found at the time of a patch v1.05.15950 , and described here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=294 will be corrected? Do you know about that bug? The bug still is present аt BETA PATCH v.1.08.18956

It appears that the track did not record the bomb bouncing off the roof. If you watch bombs dropped at a shallow angle in real time (i.e. while flying) you’ll see that they’ll bounce. This is what happened, but apparently the bounce didn’t play back in the track.

Luthier, you spent considerable time making some vehicles drivable, I guess it dawned on someone at some point that due to the fact there is no collision model on the tree's any kind of ground vehichle usage is pretty much defunct, do you think you could of spent all that time better by trying to fix the flying part of the game?

I’m not the only employee here. We have different people with different skill sets. The person who worked on player-controllable vehicles has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft or any flying part of the game.

I want to ask that you don't loose sight of the fact this is a game and the importance of "Game Play" isnt lost in the effort to "fix" CLOD and release new content for the sequel. More content in a new theatre with slightly better graphics and dynamic weather and "better simulation" or what ever other features you introduce wont make up for bad game play and game dynamics... I think you know what I mean by this. The game, bottom line, also needs to be fun.
1. In anycase, my question is, do you think you can do better with "gameplay" in the sequel? Whether that be, "MMO" or a new "co-op" mode or team "death match", "capture the flag" these kinds of things from a flightsim perspective for the online world would bring a bit of variety. The other obvious thing missing from CLOD was a campaign...

Definitely very important considerations. In addition to myself, we now have several new game designers working very hard on improving gameplay elements and creating interesting, exciting, new online modes.
Now that the game engine is rather mature and we aren’t constantly distracted by FPS or crashes, we can finally take a deep breath and start, you know, making a game out of all this.

2. Will a sequel contain the ability or content for a dynamic campaign? or even better, a rolling dynamic online war, where choices your team makes determine the outcome of a battle over a number of days or weeks?

(wink)

Agree and support and would like to add to this question...will the sequel include a dynamic campaign?
The community can build missions and static campaigns and for 1946 the best campaigns were comunity made. Desastersoft does great static campaigns. Heinkill does fantastic historic and alt history missions.

(hurts his eye winking, ow)

Question, is the Dev team aware of the "new" flicker issue in the zoom mode when dogfighting? Several members, including myself, are experiencing this bug for the first time. Other than with that, happy with the progress, and hoping the final patch and sequel are a hit.

Yes, we are aware of it. Sorry, we don’t have a solution yet, looking hard into it.

Will AI get the attention it deserves? Offline players are not happy with this at the moment.

It is getting the attention it deserves. Unfortunately the code is so bloated and complex, changes to it take forever. See how long it took us to get the graphics working – the AI is even worse.

Luthier, Is there any prospect of opening up COD for the community modders to improve content/gameplay & fix bugs? Perhaps with some sort of mechanism to allow 1C/dev's to "approve" altered content. I've always believed that there are community skills that could be utilised "for free" to improve COD which would relieve some of the load on the development team.

See earlier about the mods

When you state that no other developer would have supported this release as much as you people have really gets me annoyed, Mr Shevchenko could you tell me in what other form of business could such a complete mess have been released as a working product without a recall and demands for a refund??. I think you should be grateful that 1C are still employing you and the team given the failure in an 18 month time period to fix this product to a satisfactory level??.

Well I could always run for senate.

On ATAG it`s very easy to lose sight of targets or chase ones that simply aren`t there,
can that be fixed please?

We’re hoping it’s been fixed in Friday’s RC,

I know you have said that there will only be one more patch before the sequel but is there any possibility that features that were going to be in COD and are being made in the sequel could be tested in COD?

No, I don’t believe so.

Is there a way that you can make the sequel(s) independent of Steam please? I'm wanting to be able to buy a CD and install it and be able to play it in the distant future (I'm saying when I'm 36 in 20 years about) without having to worry about Steam. That is just hope that I have since I hope to continue flying this for as long as I can (devolpment of the original IL-2 started before I was born and it's my favorite game that I own).

Thank you for your support and your kind words! I can’t make any comments on online platforms for the sequels at this time however, and I really wish I could.

Luthier, you say that many core problems will be fixed by the sequel but there will only be one more CoD patch. The fact that the sequel can be loaded over CoD means that CoD will benefit from all of those improvements. These may be net code, LODs etc which we may have to wait for.
BUT! Unique CoD issues have only one more chance. This essentially means the map and the aircraft. Everything else would seem to be 'core' although I may have missed something.

As stated previously, it’s still my hope that we’ll release a map-making SDK allowing the community to change the existing map as they see fit.
Aircraft – as I wrote previously, they won’t be abandoned with the upcoming final patch. We are carrying everything over to the sequel, and they will get the same attention as new sequel aircraft and definitely benefit from our future efforts.

The BoB was to have been the flagship of the SoW series (as it was originally called) and for a very good reason. It was the iconic air battle of the war and particularly spotlighted air combat between the fighters. CoD cannot even come close if the FMs for the aircraft are incorrect. Anything else is just noise or are core issues that will be fixed anyway.
We still want to fight the BoB on a realistic basis as far as the aircraft are concerned, particularly the fighters.
Will you please confirm that if the FMs are still not close to historical data when we beta test them in the next patch (as regards basic performance like speed, climb and turn) you will put maximum effort onto this important CoD aspect and get them right or promise a final patch that fixes this single important aspect?

Absolutely.

Can I say regarding the bolded bit from your quote above that I disagree somewhat. For sure some here will be hostile no matter what you do. Others, myself included, sometimes feel that poor communication needlessly creates antagonism - eg the delay in providing answers to these questions. A simple post on the forum saying they were delayed but upcoming would have been enough to smooth things over until they were ready.

Some of us who want to be supportive feel that the (lack of) communication here is sometimes more damaging than the issues with the game.

If that could be improved i think people would feel more involved and on your side.


I meant that it wouldn’t do anything for the bottom line, for sales. Whatever I do here today won’t sell any new copies, and it will have no effect on the sequel.
The only reason we ever did anything with the game, starting as far back as about last May, was for forum brownie points. It was clear enough even then that any additional fixes won’t pay the bills, that the only way for us to survive financially is to release a good sequel, fix any issues with Cliffs of Dover while making the sequel, and grandfather CoD content into it.
We made the decision then to try to release as many of the fixes as we can in the shape of free updates for Cliffs of Dover and hope that it restores some of the trust and placates the community. That unfortunately never materialized. The community is as hostile as ever, and for most of us the general atmosphere of “you fixed X, about time, let’s never mention it again, now why the hell aren’t you fixing Y” is extremely tiring. Again, don’t feel like being all PC today. Definitely not judging anyone for their attitude or saying they have no right to feel that way, but I personally can only take so much abuse, and that’s why I post here so rarely.
To me, the product speaks for itself, and my efforts on the forums are secondary. I feel that if the people aren’t happy with my product when they play it, I certainly can’t convince them to like it by posting about it on the forums.

yea' but now there seems to be texture lod issues again with the 109s disappearing when 300 meters away either this is modeling issue or texture

planes are causing micro stutters when they get near my plane

Spits won't start

Hurricanes won't start

throttle settings are incorrect

Boost scale is way off

Single player customization ammo load outs are not working

objects and horizon are visible through the cockpits again

objects are visible through the terrain and clouds

now if those were fixed, I think 95% of us would be happy with it.

Great list, thank you! Do everything we can for the final release.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Luthier,

I understand you saying the dedicated server was shipped with the game, but it's function doesn't really work like a dedicated server.

Let me explain: The dedicated server for IL2COD, brings up a DOS looking box/console that gives off the appearance of a dedicated server, and it very well may act like one too, but here's the major fault: The dedicated server connects like a client.

What I mean is, you load up a dedicated server for virtually every single other steam game out there, and steam is not required to run it. It is it's own standalone dedicated server that streams data through steam for showing on steam's master browser / for anti-cheat etc. I guess what I'm getting at is: If globally, steam goes down for maintenance, so does the server for IL2COD. This does not happen in CSS, TF2, COD4, CS 1.6, etc.,etc., etc.. The server always remains up. It may not appear up on steam's list, but steam doesn't effect it's ability to remain running, just it's ability to show up.

Now, if this was the only concern with connecting like a client to run a dedicated server, I could probably live with that. We've had to code various things to keep the server up and running when steam fails because of it - which is annoying, but it does work. But the main thing without having a real standalone server like the other steam games is made the ability to host multiple servers from the same machine, virtually impossible. I understand Repka has re-imaged their operating system (made virtual machines inside their normal machine) for each and every single instance of the server they want to run. Basically, this is ludicrous. I should be able, just like all other steam servers (such as the examples listed above) install as many and run as many dedicated servers that I please. Having the dedicated server act as a client is just flat out wrong.

Can you please tell me you are getting rid of that system and going to a system like other steam games, where you don't even need the steam service running to run a server. We have one hell of a dedicated machine, and it's sad we can't run more than 1 instance of the game (as a server on it) because of servers acting/connecting like clients.

Can you shed any light on this?

[JTDawg]

Thanks again i haven't seen a ghost formation since this patch anybody else?

[335th_GRAthos]

Thanks Luthier for taking the time to write to us.

I may not like all answers but, it is a huge improvement compared to the "silence" we had very often during the past months (Black6 did a great job but we often felt how big the constraints were set upon him regarding disclosure of the current state of progress).

Looking forward to the sequel, good to read that there is a sequel planned and that work is being done (instead of dropping the whole project).

~S~

[banned]

Thanks again i haven't seen a ghost formation since this patch anybody else?
No, however just saw three floating ships, in the clouds. First time I've seen that. Very funny.

[salmo]

Luthier,
Thankyou for answering questions. I know the team is squashing bugs in the RC patch as best they can. You might have overlooked some important problems, especially numbers (3), (4) & (5).

GAME BUGS:
(1) Hurricane cockpit has blue flashing light/illumination coming from cockpit floor below rudder pedals. Could be rendering of engine flame inside cockpit?
(2) Hurricanes won't ground start until water temp > about 30 degrees.
(3) Spline roads & urban & rural buildings do not appear in online MP server games.
(4) Vehicles travel through bridges at ground height & not over them.
(5) Static objects don't retain their Z-offset parameter, all are returned to ground height in-game.
(6) Rendering issue when cockpit view turns red (pilot injured). See screen shot below.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=99735669
(7) In spitfire IIa, collided head-on with 109, entire plane exploded & disappeared. (a) I exploded, 109 flies on apparently undamaged. (b) my camera view left in mid-air, should be pilot-kill black screen of death after head-on collision.
(8 ) Spitfire engine cuts out when throttle pulled back below 30 percent percent.
(9) On custom-made air bases, taxiing Ai planes still jump into the air & crash to earth, or crash when they teleport as they taxi.
(10) FMB object rendering issues remain unchanged. eg. Piers at Dover only render at relatively close distance in-game.

FMB BUGS
(1) Spline roads don't show in FMB when a mission is loaded, they only show after you re-save the mission.

[Fjordmonkey]

While some of the answers definitely will piss off some people, I find that they are honest answers all in all. Probably too honest for some people, but then again, honesty is always better than having sunshine and rainbows blown up one's kilt.

While I may not agree with all of the answers, they are what they are. When BoM comes out, I'll have a look at it and then decide if I'll buy it based on the merits and feedback about that product, and despite what CLoD was.

[Vaxxtx]

I guess what I got after reading all that is:

CLoD is pretty much done. We need money and CLoD aint it. Everything that you thought CLoD should have been will be in our sequel. Buy it if you want a working game.

Thanks for coming around to answer those questions, but for me personally, it doesnt shine light at the end of this tunnel.

[NervousEnergy]

First of all, I see that my brand of humor offended some people. I forget sometimes that some fans are so passionate about this game they can’t take anything but straight out plain answers, so I’ll answer some of the earlier questions again.
Hell, I thought it was brilliant. I think MysticPuma needs to rap his knuckles against the Sarcasm gauge in his 'pit; it appears the needle is stuck.

I agree with the short fix list above... if you could get AI working at least a little better for the offline players, get the netcode a bit tighter for the online players, and improve the particle system you'd silence a huge chunk of the criticism.

It's an enormously ambitious game that's still a lot of fun even in the current state. People are really, really wrapped up in it as it's the only thing we've got that's moving the state of the art forward in high-fidelity WWII air combat. 1946 with HFSX 6 is pretty nice, but technically doesn't hold a candle except in community where it rules the roost.

I'll buy the sequel. Probably pre-order.

[hiro]

Thanks for answering the questions.


but dude (Ilya) some of those answers made me think for a second that all the negative nayswers were correct with some of the unprofessional (official business to business conduct).

And I was pissed man. But then I saw the second posting, and looking back, you're trying to be funny and also you're coming from a perspective of you're tired of all the bashing you've received and all the rampant speculation that's worse than every sewing circle and gossip columnist in history.


Also the answers to the patch fixes, it seems to me that there is so much on the patch that's promised, it may be too much to be actually done. Too big to deliver.

But since you know more about whats going on that us here on the forum (and me), I'll take it up on hope that all you stated in the patch will be said and done.





There is some hope the following means CoD will be fixed and I like the hope for community SDK tools to come later, so the 3rd party support can take up the mantle of making Clod better.



The only reason we ever did anything with the game, starting as far back as about last May, was for forum brownie points. It was clear enough even then that any additional fixes won’t pay the bills, that the only way for us to survive financially is to release a good sequel, fix any issues with Cliffs of Dover while making the sequel, and grandfather CoD content into it.

Aircraft – as I wrote previously, they won’t be abandoned with the upcoming final patch. We are carrying everything over to the sequel, and they will get the same attention as new sequel aircraft and definitely benefit from our future efforts.





So its going to be similar to IL-2 but also the model will change . . . as they are not exactly following the IL-2 . . .




I think alot of the "attitude" Luthier has is that he's confident the sequel will fulfill most of the expectations we've had for the IL-2 successor series.

Also the man himself backed up what csThor was saying, and also that working on the game is primary and speaking with the forum is tertiary or quaternary . . .


I can understand the frustration and its a let down. Don't get me wrong, my initial impression was one of being upset.

But I remember you are putting all in the sequel and you did take the time to fix the sequel as much as your resources will allow.


It's funny, as the answers would only lead to more answers and also that the community would get what they want (the answers) and still gripe about it.

One of the points of hilarity was the SU 26 let down, but now that its out, someone was complaining about the SU 26 with lasers and not fixing Clod all the way.

Well . . . life goes on.



I think and hope that the sequel working and being a great game will help things.


Remember folks, history can change, with enough effort, focus, drive, and will. And doing what is right and good.

If you look back at the Americans at the start of WW 2 in the pacific, prior to Midway . . . you'd think they couldn't win.

That's what I'm hoping. Yes this series is the laughingstock of the gaming world. Yes it brings beast PCs to their knees. Yes they could have had it working, and had lot more content and features. But remember, yes they did fix it what they could. And yes the sequel is promised to be opposite of CoD's bad release . . .



Here is a very sad video on the story of the Kee Bird. For those who need "closure".:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxbipBu7Cdc

sad, I was so bummed out ( I saw it when I was in highschool) . . . and couldn't tell no one that would really understand because the nerds were all into fantasy or sci fi, and the closest was the racer or car guys, but they didn't even get much since they knew about cars and not planes.

but that story isn't 100% accurate for this game . . . nor although we've the end of the road, still i can't let go . . . Because the sequel will come out and whats fixed there can aid in Cod, and tools for 3rd party improvements for Cod will be coming . . .

[planespotter]

People need a Russian culture adapter here. Luthiers responses were FUNNY. Russian humour. Give him a break!

Here is another Russian joke...

"Russian Quality Control"

[csThor]

First of all, I disagree with it being “below standard”. Your definition of single-player standard is probably different from mine. If you expect Mass Effect or Skyrim, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Cliffs of Dover was intended to be a sandbox game more than anything, expansive, open, giving complete freedom to the players. If you’ll remember, the original Il-2 owed much of its success to user-made content. We aimed for the same with Cliffs of Dover. Instead of building complex single-player content in-house, we gave the tools to the community. Cliffs of Dover has a much better mission builder with scripting support, supports complex moddable briefings and debriefings, and so on.
Unfortunately 3rd party support never materialized the way we hoped it would, and we ourselves cannot at this point go back and redo single player.
Still, I strongly disagree with your criticism of the single-player. The two campaigns, quick mission builder, and the full mission builder offer a lot in terms of single-player. Standard? I’ve played plenty of AAA games where the entire single-player content is under 20 hours with 0 replay value, and I didn’t even feel like finishing the entire thing. At the same time I’ve logged way more than 20 hours in quick mission builder alone. What does that say about industry standards?

You're joking, right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/po_shiang/Emoticon/wtf.gif You aren't really saying that CloD contains any offline and/or gameplay content worth the bits on my HDD?

As for the rest. Building a sandbox for the customers to play in is all fine and dandy if the karking thing had a solid fundament! In the current situation you're essentially saying "You want offline gameplay? Code it yourself." Yep! *shattering round of sarcastic applause* Brilliant. Marvelous. Sorry for the sarcasm overflow. I couldn't help myself at this apparent disregard of an entire slice of your community.

On a more serious note. Yes, the overwhelming majority of good offline content in 1946 came from external sources. But ... you know there was going to be a but ;) ... they had a solid fundament to build their campaigns on. There was a campaign module with rank system and medals (regardless how primitive), but CloD doesn't have any of that. Hence my "Code it yourself" statement. Well ... I can't code, programming languages don't make sense to me. Desastersoft did that, but they have their own style of campaigns and won't (for obvious reasons) release their campaign module for public consumption. Not that this would make much sense given the issues with the AI and the problems with player - AI interaction. Or has there been any addition to the radio menu with ground-attack options? Not? Oops!

So ... bottom line for me is that luthier apparently thinks that gameplay is a luxury and not needed at all. Interesting perspective, especially when you remember that Maddox Games wants to sell computer games. Unless, of course, MMO's are all you're interested in (what a coincidence, isn't it? :roll: ). I'll keep an eye on further developments, but I won't expect anything anymore. Have fun with your sandbox in which nothing but the usual clusterf*ck between fighters is possible. Too bad about the possibilities. *shakes head*

[Feathered_IV]

Not much room for jokes here. For luthier it's just a job. He can always get another one. But for us, where will we ever get another WWII flight sim from?

[Fjordmonkey]

But for us, where will we ever get another WWII flight sim from?

Straight from 1C, once they release BoM? :mrgreen:

[luthier]

You're joking, right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/po_shiang/Emoticon/wtf.gif You aren't really saying that CloD contains any offline and/or gameplay content worth the bits on my HDD?

As for the rest. Building a sandbox for the customers to play in is all fine and dandy if the karking thing had a solid fundament! In the current situation you're essentially saying "You want offline gameplay? Code it yourself." Yep! *shattering round of sarcastic applause* Brilliant. Marvelous. Sorry for the sarcasm overflow. I couldn't help myself at this apparent disregard of an entire slice of your community.

On a more serious note. Yes, the overwhelming majority of good offline content in 1946 came from external sources. But ... you know there was going to be a but ;) ... they had a solid fundament to build their campaigns on. There was a campaign module with rank system and medals (regardless how primitive), but CloD doesn't have any of that. Hence my "Code it yourself" statement. Well ... I can't code, programming languages don't make sense to me. Desastersoft did that, but they have their own style of campaigns and won't (for obvious reasons) release their campaign module for public consumption. Not that this would make much sense given the issues with the AI and the problems with player - AI interaction. Or has there been any addition to the radio menu with ground-attack options? Not? Oops!

So ... bottom line for me is that luthier apparently thinks that gameplay is a luxury and not needed at all. Interesting perspective, especially when you remember that Maddox Games wants to sell computer games. Unless, of course, MMO's are all you're interested in (what a coincidence, isn't it? :roll: ). I'll keep an eye on further developments, but I won't expect anything anymore. Have fun with your sandbox in which nothing but the usual clusterf*ck between fighters is possible. Too bad about the possibilities. *shakes head*

Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.

[RedToo]

Quote:
Any chance of stopping the trees and their attendant shadows looking like they're having an epileptic fit?

I would think most of the community should know by now that mentioning epilepsy to the team is a very, very bad idea.
Unquote.


It would seem that humour does not translate well either way. Then again we are always being cautioned about using humour in the workplace.


To re phrase the question:

One. Clod uses Speedtree. Trees in Clod 'shiver' all the time causing their attendant shadows to shiver all the time. Easily seen when flying over them. This is not how trees look from a few hundred feet.

Two. Lots of other games use Speedtree. In these games the trees and their shadows do not shiver from a distance, but individual leaves do move when close up.

Any chance of stopping the trees and their attendant shadows shivering/ shaking/ moving in a completely unrealistic way from a distance?


RedToo.

[hiro]

Not much room for jokes here. For luthier it's just a job. He can always get another one. But for us, where will we ever get another WWII flight sim from?

Straight from 1C, once they release BoM? :mrgreen:

BOM is like Luke in original three . . . but DCS might be Leia or even ROF devs or some others off the horizon (and I'm being serious, if the ROF guys wanted to WW2 they could pull it off)


Yoda: Told you I did. Reckless is he. Now, matters are worse.
Obi-Wan: That BOM is our last hope.
Yoda: No. There is another.

[JG52Krupi]

Hi luthier any chances you guys could look into the lack of 109 radiator drag and the same for spitfire open cockpits, thanks.

Also I heard that ships were still gravitating towards the moon ;) please look in to that.

One last thing is that the RC patch changed the lighting, it's too bright now for example look at the light cast by a gunsight bulb during the day!!!! Please review.

Thanks for your time, :D

Also one more thing, please look at the spit weathering, it looks like someone dragged it through a few hedges between the assembly line and the airfield ;)

[Tree_UK]

Luthier, thank you for finally being honest about how bad you feel selling us this broken piece of software, its good you can laugh about it now and make jokes. Tell me how bad did you feel when you were faking all those video's pre release in order to convince us to buy a product that by your own admission you knew was not fit for purpose?

[Icebear]

You're joking, right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v516/po_shiang/Emoticon/wtf.gif You aren't really saying that CloD contains any offline and/or gameplay content worth the bits on my HDD?

As for the rest. Building a sandbox for the customers to play in is all fine and dandy if the karking thing had a solid fundament! In the current situation you're essentially saying "You want offline gameplay? Code it yourself." Yep! *shattering round of sarcastic applause* Brilliant. Marvelous. Sorry for the sarcasm overflow. I couldn't help myself at this apparent disregard of an entire slice of your community.

On a more serious note. Yes, the overwhelming majority of good offline content in 1946 came from external sources. But ... you know there was going to be a but ;) ... they had a solid fundament to build their campaigns on. There was a campaign module with rank system and medals (regardless how primitive), but CloD doesn't have any of that. Hence my "Code it yourself" statement. Well ... I can't code, programming languages don't make sense to me. Desastersoft did that, but they have their own style of campaigns and won't (for obvious reasons) release their campaign module for public consumption. Not that this would make much sense given the issues with the AI and the problems with player - AI interaction. Or has there been any addition to the radio menu with ground-attack options? Not? Oops!

So ... bottom line for me is that luthier apparently thinks that gameplay is a luxury and not needed at all. Interesting perspective, especially when you remember that Maddox Games wants to sell computer games. Unless, of course, MMO's are all you're interested in (what a coincidence, isn't it? :roll: ). I'll keep an eye on further developments, but I won't expect anything anymore. Have fun with your sandbox in which nothing but the usual clusterf*ck between fighters is possible. Too bad about the possibilities. *shakes head*

Well said and the sad truth. In the end IL2 will be one of this usual, boring arcade online clusterf*ck MMO's. The coop mode with all it's capabilities to stay ahead of the mainstream competition died tonight.

Maybe we are just too old and romantic csThor. ;)

[J.Reb]

Part II
I meant that it wouldn’t do anything for the bottom line, for sales.


Ever thought of boosting your bottom line by delivering a product that works?

Or by not delivering a prouct that you know doesn't work?

Either way is better than what you did.

Now those of us who spent good money for CoD wait to see how fair you will be with us when the (sight unseen) sequel hits the market.

[senseispcc]

.
I am happy with COD!
It could be better, yes but it is such a leap forward. Like the original IL2 was in the world of war flight simulations.
What is the difference between IL2 the original and IL2 COD... the subject IL2 original had a original subject that no had tried or touch before and it was therefore a instant hit. But and it is a big "but" COD is a air battle well covered by many games, books and movies so everyone think he is an expert or has is opinion.
Also when the game is more precise the gamer is more demanding. This is a game not reality! And never shall it be all games with ever his format pc or other has is restrictions, do not forget that the real Battle over Britain was a struggle to the 'death' this is not let us hope not!
For me the graphics are great!
The modeling of the planes far from perfect is near enough to make it a battle to prevail faced with mighty opponents!
I am waiting for the last and official fully tested patch and for the next (not sequel) game of the series, thanks.
:evil:
.
One last remark; for my PC this simulation did work (with very few exceptions) well or very well.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Well, I liked these answers more. Honest and blunt. I hope the "Last Patch of CoD" will address critical issues so we can play meanwhile waiting for the sequel. Maybe should consider some DLC for CoD to get funds, like RoF. Sure has been discussed but still a viable option as there are things improving the game people would pay a small fee of. CoD is on the verge of greatness in many ways, just some issues keep it from reaching that yet. I hope the sequel restores the standard we were used to with IL-2 series before.

[J.Reb]

@ Tree UK

lol, ur bad .....

Good thing for us luthier is not the sort of gent to keep ill-gotten gains. No doubt in my mind we can expect free replacement DVD's the first week the sequel comes out.

[Luno13]

Thanks for the time and support Luthier. I can imagine that it's not easy.

Serious question regarding tree collisions:

Often trees are grouped in clusters and forests, with a few standing alone. What if collision boxes were arranged such that an entire forest is covered by one box (or even just parallel planes like in 1946) . This would reduce the total number of boxes, saving FPS. The downside of course, would be more work on the map, fine-tuning these shapes.

Or, alternatively, each tree only has a 'trunk' collision region consisting of two crossed rectangles (four polygons max). Branches and foliage bend anyway, and many times aircraft have skimmed trees, taking branches home in the wheels or wings :cool: So, having branches clip through an aircraft might be acceptable.

Are any of these feasible?

[Feathered_IV]

Ease off a bit Tree.

[kristorf]

2. Will the terrible weathering on Allied aircraft be fixed?
It’s not terrible.



I'm afraid to say it is, truly terrible.
Something simple like this is for me a game breaker.

In a previous comment you say that you (and others) were fed up of seeing, and I quote

We hated seeing horrible flat user-made skins everywhere in the original Il-2,so we settled on the technology that keeps the lower-end of the quality bar firmly set where no user effort can nudge it lower – even if that means also setting the ceiling for great skin makers.


but the 'thing' in this game is worse than anything I have seen in IL2,the effect is like a sandblaster from side on, with no working level of wear, just 100% full on.
I have never seen a photo of either a Spitfire or Hurricane (or for that matter any RAF aircraft) with anything even similar to the effect imposed on Allied aircraft in this game.

A little thing I know, but this along with the broken (with no intention of fixing it) coop channel map (the main reason I and many others bought the game in the first place) really puts me off.

[Tree_UK]

Ease off a bit Tree.

I will mate, Im done with it.

[csThor]

Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.

Luthier. First thanks for taking the time to answer my reply. However, I can't help but feel some kind of shizophrenic split between the first comment I quoted (where you disagreed with CloD not having any offline content) and what you wrote above. First you implied that offline is of no consequence and then you apologized for not adding stuff there due to resource issues. So what's it going to be? :confused:

Secondly I am aware that the services for Clod have been read already. I was talking in general and about future projects and your first reply implied (strongly) that offline gameplay is of no particular, if any, importance in your opinion. This strikes me as extremely strange, especially given the still strong factor of offline players. Yes, a lot of creativity lies within the community, but not paying attention to offliners and their needs and not utilizing a good offline campaign and decent single missions as showcase for what the engine can achieve is strange (to put it mildly). Just my 0,02 €...

[Plt Off JRB Meaker]

Join the club Tree,the members community is growing daily;)

[bongodriver]

I will mate, Im done with it.

Seriously?........you are actually going to walk out the door for a change?

[Mysticpuma]

I appreciate the second set of answers Luthier.

The way I see it from your replies is that whatever is fixed in the next patch is what it will be for good?

BoM will be a new game, new gui, fully working graphics (still using speed tree), a proper campaign, dgen and the maps and aircraft from CloD will be imported into the new game engine?

With regards to the 'new' graphics engine, screenshots don't make look much different from CloD at the moment so can you tell us what's changed or going to change?

Your replies indicated that you were handed over a broken product and your time has been spent repairing it. Now that you will be 'free' of CloD what do you intend to do differently?

Lastly it really is appreciated that you take time to interact with the community, if you did this more regularly I really feel there would be considerably less animosity across the forums.

Finally the way I read your reply is that BoM will be a new game with CloD maps and aircraft imported into it?

If a player has CloD installed that will be a standalone game, if a player buys BoM they get BoM with CloD incorporated into it? So the BoM won't install over Clod it will contain CloD and probably remove the old version when BoM is installed?

Thanks again for the replies, although not what I wanted to hear your interaction (in the second set of answers and some of the first!) IS appreciated.

Please interact more in future.

Cheers, MP

BTW, I think the reason so many of us are passionate about this is that we were spoiled by 1946 and we know we have touched greatness. CloD just didn't fulfill the promises we hoped for.

Good luck with BoM, is there any provisional timeline for releasing it? Maybe 2014, second quarter?

[Insuber]

Hi Luthier - a lot of communication today, thank you!
bacj
I have a question about effects: I miss the "quick flashes" upon impact of my bullets on the enemy a/c. They helped a lot to assess shooting. Will they be back in the final patch?

Cheers,
Insuber

[yobnaf]

Thank you luthier for the answers and the great work. I am sure the next patch for CloD will be a breathtaking awesome milestone in flightsim history.

[jimbop]

Just have to say thanks for the solid answers in Part II. Much appreciated and feeling more positive about the sequel now.

[JG52Krupi]

I appreciate the second set of answers Luthier.

The way I see it from your replies is that whatever is fixed in the next patch is what it will be for good?

BoM will be a new game, new gui, fully working graphics (still using speed tree), a proper campaign, dgen and the maps and aircraft from CloD will be imported into the new game engine?

With regards to the 'new' graphics engine, screenshots don't make look much different from CloD at the moment so can you tell us what's changed or going to change?

Your replies indicated that you were handed over a broken product and your time has been spent repairing it. Now that you will be 'free' of CloD what do you intend to do differently?

Lastly it really is appreciated that you take time to interact with the community, if you did this more regularly I really feel there would be considerably less animosity across the forums.

Finally the way I read your reply is that BoM will be a new game with CloD maps and aircraft imported into it?

If a player has CloD installed that will be a standalone game, if a player buys BoM they get BoM with CloD incorporated into it? So the BoM won't install over Clod it will contain CloD and probably remove the old version when BoM is installed?

Thanks again for the replies, although not what I wanted to hear your interaction (in the second set of answers and some of the first!) IS appreciated.

Please interact more in future.

Cheers, MP

BTW, I think the reason so many of us are passionate about this is that we were spoiled by 1946 and we know we have touched greatness. CloD just didn't fulfill the promises we hoped for.

Good luck with BoM, is there any provisional timeline for releasing it? Maybe 2014, second quarter?

Hi Luthier - a lot of communication today, thank you!
bacj
I have a question about effects: I miss the "quick flashes" upon impact of my bullets on the enemy a/c. They helped a lot to assess shooting. Will they be back in the final patch?

Cheers,
Insuber

Good questions, I would like to add one more.

You have stated hit sounds will be added, what about flak sounds.

They look fantastic especially at night, we really could do with some sounds on them as well.

It would add a lot more to the immersion to hear the terrifc crack noise they made.

[SlipBall]

luthier
Quote:
Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.
We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.


I wonder what is not being used, could you explain this a bit.

[Freycinet]

The community is as hostile as ever, and for most of us the general atmosphere of “you fixed X, about time, let’s never mention it again, now why the hell aren’t you fixing Y” is extremely tiring. Again, don’t feel like being all PC today. Definitely not judging anyone for their attitude or saying they have no right to feel that way, but I personally can only take so much abuse, and that’s why I post here so rarely.

That's only human.

Those who waste away their lives spouting hate on these forums aren't ever going to contribute anything worthwhile to this world. You've made a sim that, though flawed, has allowed us a peek into the future of hi-fi flight simming. And hopefully not a peek into an alternate universe!

With BoM the main effort should be towards delivering the technological breakthroughs of CoD in an appetizing and user-friendly package.

It will be crucial to the success of BoM that the community is allowed to populate the sandbox, so I think a major effort should go towards documentation. A website explaining the FMB thoroughly (where users can also upload cool scripts). And tutorials on how to fly the planes (like the DCS series in-cockpit interactive ones). That will go a long way towards the catalytic level, where the sim develops a life on its own, like Il-2 "Classic."

I always dreamt of (virtually) flying in WWII. With CoD you have kept the dream alive, but unfortunately not totally fulfilled. I wish you success in the future, so that you + an active community can help fulfill the dream!

And if you need some positive vibes, check out my CoD movies, passing half a million views pretty soon... The interest and passion is out there, just got to grab it! :-)

[Winger]

No single word on SLI or FSAA. Riddiculous.

Winger

[Dano]

With regards to the 'new' graphics engine, screenshots don't make look much different from CloD at the moment so can you tell us what's changed or going to change?

You're already playing on it with CoD.

Luthier, thank you for answering the particle question this time around, my apologies for failing to get your humour in the first set of answers.

[Fjordmonkey]

No single word on SLI or FSAA. Riddiculous.

Winger

Compared to the other issues that CLoD has, these two are so utterly and ridiculously minor issues that they don't warrant mentioning at all.

[Storm of When]

Cheers for the replies I won`t be as negative from here on in, I think we need to lay off them a bit and wait for Bo? to see what happens from that point on. It`s obvious that the sequel will the defining moment, sh*t or bust so to speak, and it`ll also be the point where this team as it stands has had full control of the games destiny rather than picking up a pile and having to mould it into something workable in a short space of time. Give em a chance and forget past errors, after all it`s the only large scale WW2 flight sim on the horizin (as opposed to Gaijins mickey mouse efforts and DCS`s £30 a throw planes).

[jimbop]

I meant that it wouldn’t do anything for the bottom line, for sales. Whatever I do here today won’t sell any new copies, and it will have no effect on the sequel.

I think you are wrong there if you place any value on pre-orders. Good will takes time to build, especially when you are well behind to start with. Definitely starting to look forward to the sequel now.

[Feathered_IV]

Sobering stuff though. BoM is still a couple of years away I imagine, based on past experience. Here's hoping they can rediscover the art.

[jimbop]

Sobering stuff though. BoM is still a couple of years away I imagine, based on past experience. Here's hoping they can rediscover the art.

Yes, sobering but I think there is a subtle point that people are missing. Luthier has been the project manager of the sequel from the start whereas he took over partway through the development of CoD.

It is very difficult to successfully take over a project partway through. People are already entrenched in their own way of doing things (which have usually led to the disaster requiring a change in project leadership). The team is often resentful and this makes it difficult to change the way the project moves.

Luthier might do better with the sequel than with CoD.

[lonewulf]

To my way of thinking the replies appeared genuine and sincere and I appreciate the effort. These guys aren't required to talk to us so anything we get is a real bonus.

I suspect Luthier and co view any ongoing dialogue as something of a two edged sword, but to my way of thinking discussion, and the appearance that you are being listened to, is always worthwhile.

Thanks again for the replies.

[Feathered_IV]

Yes, sobering but I think there is a subtle point that people are missing. Luthier has been the project manager of the sequel from the start whereas he took over partway through the development of CoD.
It is very difficult to successfully take over a project partway through. People are already entrenched in their own way of doing things (which have usually led to the disaster requiring a change in project leadership). The team is often resentful and this makes it difficult to change the way the project moves.

Luthier might do better with the sequel than with CoD.

I don't know. Reading his comments I get the feeling that his creative philosophy is so far from mine that the sequel will be a rather hollow experience and one that is sadly not for me.

[jimbop]

I don't know. Reading his comments I get the feeling that his creative philosophy is so far from mine that the sequel will be a rather hollow experience and one that is sadly not for me.

Maybe but at least it will be his own 'creative philosophy' rather than someone else's that he has to work with. That's the only point I was trying to make.

[Ploughman]

Thanks for the replies to our questions. I look forward to the sequel and the further, more extensive, improvements to the game engine and the gamer's experience it will bring.

Will you be dropping the Il-2 Sturmovik name from future releases? Any cache Il-2 Sturmovik may've had in terms of product recognition etc., has surely been erased by the CloD debacle.

[adonys]

Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.

Luthier, for God's sake. please open your eyes and understand: THERE IS NO OFFLINE PLAY ATM. and that not due to lack of 3rd party content, length of official campaign or horrible GUI.

no matter how good is, or it is not, a campaign/mission made (and Desastersoft's seems quite to actually be good), it has ZERO playability value because of:
- broken AI, which won't play along with you. it's like you are not existent for them, invisible. they won't follow, they won't consider you a part of their flight
- porked combat AI (they will pass each other 300m away without noticing each other, strange combat maneuvers, lack of maneuvers when fired at, etc, etc, etc)
- broken Radio Comms - you can not get them do anything.

do you understand that those are system sooo broken they are almost inexistent? and that, without them, there's no damn single player game at all?!!

that's why the number of community made content fall out to zero. because there's no point to make anything based on systems which are not working. We had two very good dynamic persistent battlefield engines on work, and both stopped dead because of exactly this reason.

come on!!!

[Icebear]

I don't know. Reading his comments I get the feeling that his creative philosophy is so far from mine that the sequel will be a rather hollow experience and one that is sadly not for me.

And that's the point. What do we expect? Many here are looking forward to an arcarde online flight shooter, others prefer a WW2 flight simulation, a successor of the IL2 series. I'm glad that Luthier clarified this point in is own humorous way once and for all and with no doubts. Now we all know where we stand with him and his future products.

Take it or leave it, that's his unmistakable message.

[zander]

You failed to deliver a complete product, you conned most of us into believing that things would have been fixed, and now you're basically saying "hey this is what it is, so just take it and wait for the next chapter" which most of us don't even care for, since it's a theatre of action that honestly appeals just one market, the Russian one.


Hm?
Honestly, I don't give a flying F about early 109s and Spits anymore - I'm looking forward to 190s and Yaks.:cool:

btw: How are they supposed to finance further patching? I'm actually suprised they went this far.

[adonys]

and luthier, what about community sponsored aircrafts? there might be enough volunteers to work/pay for some extra BoB not planned aircrafts, like the wellington.

[Flanker35M]

S!

Would make it easy if devs made a poll on a plane people wanted to be added and give the price for it. Very much like in RoF where you can pre-order a plane. This could appeal to other features as well. Enough paying customers = feature/plane in the game. Sure not liked by all, but..

[Skoshi Tiger]

Personally I think that this sim is a creative work of art that should be left in the hands of the deveopers.

Put in a poll and well end up with a FW-190 Vs P-51 sim, which have been done Ad nauseam over the years.

I'ld rather the devs explored avenues of the sim that they were passionate about rather than bung out content to a formula.

[Fjordmonkey]

Personally I think that this sim is a creative work of art that should be left in the hands of the deveopers.

Put in a poll and well end up with a FW-190 Vs P-51 sim, which have been done Ad nauseam over the years.

I'ld rather the devs explored avenues of the sim that they were passionate about rather than bung out content to a formula.

Agree on this, especially since communities (especially this one) cannot agree on damn near anything.

[Meusli]

Thanks for the answers Luthier. I always imagined that if you turned up to answer some questions the mob mentality of a certain few would be fully unleashed. I am certainly interested in your next sequel and that is why I still visit these forums, I also feel no anger or ill will either to you or your company.

Maybe now that you have drawn a line in the sand,of where you are now and where you hope to go in the future, it will finally make these negative nancy's move on to different pastures and stop the daily crucifixion that your company receives on its own forum. That is what I hope, but I know we are unlikely to get.

[stelr]

I appreciate the second set of answers Luthier.

The way I see it from your replies is that whatever is fixed in the next patch is what it will be for good?

BoM will be a new game, new gui, fully working graphics (still using speed tree), a proper campaign, dgen and the maps and aircraft from CloD will be imported into the new game engine?

With regards to the 'new' graphics engine, screenshots don't make look much different from CloD at the moment so can you tell us what's changed or going to change?

Your replies indicated that you were handed over a broken product and your time has been spent repairing it. Now that you will be 'free' of CloD what do you intend to do differently?

Lastly it really is appreciated that you take time to interact with the community, if you did this more regularly I really feel there would be considerably less animosity across the forums.

Finally the way I read your reply is that BoM will be a new game with CloD maps and aircraft imported into it?

If a player has CloD installed that will be a standalone game, if a player buys BoM they get BoM with CloD incorporated into it? So the BoM won't install over Clod it will contain CloD and probably remove the old version when BoM is installed?

Thanks again for the replies, although not what I wanted to hear your interaction (in the second set of answers and some of the first!) IS appreciated.

Please interact more in future.

Cheers, MP

BTW, I think the reason so many of us are passionate about this is that we were spoiled by 1946 and we know we have touched greatness. CloD just didn't fulfill the promises we hoped for.

Good luck with BoM, is there any provisional timeline for releasing it? Maybe 2014, second quarter?

I was about to comment (as this is my first time writing on this forum), but could add nothing to the above. These were my questions exactly. Standing by for answers to these critical questions.

I think if you answer the above points, specifically and clearly, most of the animosity will be abated and faith restored.

v/r
Stel

[klem]

Luthier, you say that many core problems will be fixed by the sequel but there will only be one more CoD patch. The fact that the sequel can be loaded over CoD means that CoD will benefit from all of those improvements. These may be net code, LODs etc which we may have to wait for.
BUT! Unique CoD issues have only one more chance. This essentially means the map and the aircraft. Everything else would seem to be 'core' although I may have missed something.

As stated previously, it’s still my hope that we’ll release a map-making SDK allowing the community to change the existing map as they see fit.
Aircraft – as I wrote previously, they won’t be abandoned with the upcoming final patch. We are carrying everything over to the sequel, and they will get the same attention as new sequel aircraft and definitely benefit from our future efforts.


Luthier,
just to be absolutely clear, because some people here will split your words if they can....

Are you saying that if I buy the sequel and load it over CoD I will be able to return to the CoD BoB map, use the sequel's FMB to build new CoD missions, use its new GUIs, use the sequel's new AI commands, in fact use all of the sequel's new core utilities and improvements, to create new CoD/BoB scenarios including off-line missions and will have the old CoD aircraft included with their FMs updated (where necessary)? In other words the CoD part of "SoW/whatever" will be brought to the same level as the sequel.

[Canine]

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.



This is the best statement of the year. Thank you for answering honestly and you've earned my respect back. Now, let's press forward with the next project and keep the promises and goal obtainable. Thank you and your team again for the effort. I look forward to what the future holds with this learning experience.

Now, remember this:

"The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual."
Vince Lombardi

have a great day

K9

[fruitbat]

Luthier,
just to be absolutely clear, because some people here will split your words if they can....

Are you saying that if I buy the sequel and load it over CoD I will be able to return to the CoD BoB map, use the sequel's FMB to build new CoD missions, use its new GUIs, use the sequel's new AI commands, in fact use all of the sequel's new core utilities and improvements, to create new CoD/BoB scenarios including off-line missions and will have the old CoD aircraft included with their FMs updated (where necessary)? In other words the CoD part of "SoW/whatever" will be brought to the same level as the sequel.


I took it as him saying that you won't install it over the top, it wil be a separate game, but will have this content in as well as the BoM stuff.

[planespotter]

I developed real sympathy for mr shevchenko from his answers. he comes over like a real person and i feel i understand better why he has such a relationship with fans of the franchise, i really do.

but as usual it is answers like this which make you lose sympathy because of arrogance and because they are just simple incorrect:

***

Quote:
1. What specifically is preventing clouds from being depicted in a volume and quality that is competitive with other sims currently on the market?

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?

Because I know there isn’t.

****

Isn't? I must be playing games that don't exist then? Rise of Flight, Battle of Britain II even, War Thunder, Wings of Prey . . . all of these have great clouds in quality, and volume and high fps.

Understanding the competition and recognising they have strengths, is a basic first business skill Mr Shevchenko

and PS, you have the same blind spot about dogfighting AI.

[notafinger!]

I took it as him saying that you won't install it over the top, it wil be a separate game, but will have this content in as well as the BoM stuff.

My understanding as well. Sequel will include CloD planes & maps.

[JG52Krupi]

I developed real sympathy for mr shevchenko from his answers. he comes over like a real person and i feel i understand better why he has such a relationship with fans of the franchise, i really do.

but as usual it is answers like this which make you lose sympathy because of arrogance and because they are just simple incorrect:

***

Quote:
1. What specifically is preventing clouds from being depicted in a volume and quality that is competitive with other sims currently on the market?

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?

Because I know there isn’t.

****

Isn't? I must be playing games that don't exist then? Rise of Flight, Battle of Britain II even, War Thunder, Wings of Prey . . . all of these have great clouds in quality, and volume and high fps.

Understanding the competition and recognising they have strengths, is a basic first business skill Mr Shevchenko

and PS, you have the same blind spot about dogfighting AI.

Agreed... So I expect the next game to have better clouds than this :P

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResources/Blog/posts/2012_03_23/4.htm

[BH_woodstock]

Quote:
4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.


Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

(and somebody has no answer for a real question? Why be so bloody disrespectful? It's a real issue and a bug. Your attitude stinks with that answer)


Quote:
2. Have you had serious problems re-writing the various code routines?

As clearly shown by some of our beta patches in the past, no, of course not, why would you ever think that?

(Have you seen this thread? : http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34623

and this one:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34626

and this one:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34643

Just asking)



Quote:
Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?


(blows a raspberry).

(Pathetic answer. Maybe you should go back to posting a music video again? Seriously this is so childish I think you think this community is a joke?)


Quote:
1. What specifically is preventing clouds from being depicted in a volume and quality that is competitive with other sims currently on the market?

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?
Because I know there isn’t.

(Actually, there is one that is substantially better at depicting clouds in volume, density, altitude and realism!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34239 )



Quote:
Precisely how many separate projects does Maddox Games intend to work on at one time? Is the rumoured MMO to be developed by MG also?

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.
Do want to add however that the occasional rumors that pop up around here simply mystify me. Why would anyone go through the trouble of doing all that? Lame and so very very creepy.

(Because we never hear anything from you?)


Quote:
1. Will dev fix the pop up trees and buildings or provide greater view distance for people with high end cards?
2. Why do you have pop up buildings and not fade in.
People in bombers can't fly higher than 3'000m because targets pop up seconds before they must drop bombs.

We are aware of the issue, especially in relation to bombers.

(and you are doing what about it??????????)


Quote:
If your team cannot fix this first game, and give us what was originally promised/expected, what is there to show us that the new game will be any better, and worth our support, dedication, and more importantly, our money?

Don’t give us your money on day 1.

(Agreed.)

+1000%
Luthier your answers to our questions suck.blowing a rasberry at a real question is childish and shows you have no respect for this community.Most of your answers were really ignorant.maybe that is why your sound guy left.

how can you soar with eagles when you work with turkeys?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oma_2RFTaM&feature=related

[Fjordmonkey]

+1000%
Luthier your answers to our questions suck.blowing a rasberry at a real question is childish and shows you have no respect for this community.Most of your answers were really ignorant.maybe that is why your sound guy left.

how can you soar with eagles when you work with turkeys?
you give turkeys a bad name.

you should probably resign and give the task to someone more capable for the job because you sir have failed with your last reply.you cannot get respect with an attitude like that.And respect is ONE thing this community relies on.epic fail for you.



I'd daresay that the respect of the community has for him has gotten at least a tiny notch higher because of his answers. Yes, some of them are probably rude for some, but be that as it may: Most if not all of them were honest.

Which, quite frankly, is the ONLY reason as to why I'll consider picking up BoM. Honest, straight answers.

[Continu0]

Thanks for the re-answering, now that misunderstandings are cleaned up, there is one last question I would like to have answered:

Will Missions, Campaigns and stuff that were made for CloD be compatible with BoM? This concerns me because I own Desastersoft-add-ons, which I would like to use with BoM as well...

Thank you, your answers are appreciated! I am looking forward to the sequel.

[BH_woodstock]

I'd daresay that the respect of the community has for him has gotten at least a tiny notch higher because of his answers. Yes, some of them are probably rude for some, but be that as it may: Most if not all of them were honest.

Which, quite frankly, is the ONLY reason as to why I'll consider picking up BoM. Honest, straight answers.

I wish i had seen the part 2 of his answer before i made my post.



yes the situation sucks i agree.


@ Luthier, A person gets upset sometimes and says things without looking further into the problem.If I had seen part 2 of your post i would not have made my post so harsh.for that i am sorry.
hope you accept my apology

i edited that post.

[Falstaff]

Luthier said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Falstaff
Luthier, your replies would qualify as a guilty pleasure if you were only a junior developer. As things stand, they are magnificent...a kind of traditional New Orleans jazz funeral dancing down the street, trombones blowing....
Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Well since you replied directly twice, and it is welcome, I will jump back in briefly.

Firstly, we FINALLY have a sort of realistic assessment of where things were (mostly always) at. It has taken a long time...it is only a real shame we didn't have this much, much sooner, and without the sarcasm and window-dressing. I used to work in a highly pressured dev house with large financial backing, mile-stones, the whole nine yards...and these sorts of responses are fine...in-house and on internal email systems. But I don't know of a single project manager - who wants to keep his job - who would let them out into the wider world. 'What goes on in dev stays in dev', or words to that effect. I'm amazed. Personality, yes, credibility...I don't know. That's your call. Personally I'd have a big recent hit under your belt before I took that line.

As for your more technical responses, I am truly baffled by some. They fall into slack-jaw territory. But it doesn't really matter - that game is dead anyway. You said so, and a handful of us knew it from the beginning.

(and boy do the rabid 'usual suspect' element now look silly. Upended on facts, rapidly shifting the goalposts to personalities. Good luck with that one!)

But above all it's just nice to hear some answers to the criticism, and that alone. The effort of replying is worthwhile, believe it or not.

[planespotter]

[QUOTE=JG52Krupi;465826]Agreed... So I expect the next game to have better clouds than this :P

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResources/Blog/posts/2012_03_23/4.htm[/QUOTE

Or this:

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/whirlybirda2a/mission2a.jpg

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/whirlybirda2a/Day2Day/15Bsepluf23.jpg

[kestrel79]

Agreed... So I expect the next game to have better clouds than this :P

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResources/Blog/posts/2012_03_23/4.htm

I agree, this cloud comment from Luthier made me shake my head. Dude! Play some Rise of Flight, War Thunder. Great looking clouds with smooth fps.

[skarden]

If you think BOB II has better clouds you've got eye sight problems, and that screenshot is a perfect example, don't get me wrong BOB II is a GREAT game, many aspects of it are excellent, the AI in particular is unrivaled by any other flight sim, but it just can't hold a candle to bob for it's environment and lighting, and yes that means the clouds too, not to mention the depth of modeling at the aircraft level, Wings of prey is an arcade shooter and does so much less then COD it's like comparing Team Fortress 2 to ARMA 2, chalk and cheese mate, chalk and cheese.

As far as Luither's posts go, I personally say excellent responses for the most part, I got the humour he intended pretty much straight away, although I can see why some people got a bit antsy over them, text doesn't always convey what is ACTUALLY meant, and the tone can sometimes be misunderstood.

I liked the general tone of the answers, they seemed like real answers coming from a real person, and for that I'm very grateful, and his frank honesty has given me faith in the sequel, and where the series is headed, some were certainly not some of the answers I wanted, but I've always preferred brutal honesty over pretty BS so they doesn't bother me too much, you always know where you stand with it, and thats the way I like it.

Although some of the replies I've read here from some forum members has only confirmed to me at least the type of people they really are, hopefully they really do stay away this time.

[JG52Krupi]

[QUOTE=JG52Krupi;465826]Agreed... So I expect the next game to have better clouds than this :P

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResources/Blog/posts/2012_03_23/4.htm[/QUOTE

Or this:

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/whirlybirda2a/mission2a.jpg

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/whirlybirda2a/Day2Day/15Bsepluf23.jpg

Really not sure what I am looking at there to be honest!!! Urghhh

[Dano]

I'd settle for standard IL2 1946 clouds to be honest.

[furbs]

A better example of what BOM should be aiming at...

http://imageshack.us/a/img683/8981/new5fx.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img850/6681/day3l.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4170/day1j.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img718/6006/rof20110716075156062.jpg

[JG52Krupi]

A better example of what BOM should be aiming at...

http://imageshack.us/a/img683/8981/new5fx.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img850/6681/day3l.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4170/day1j.jpg

Nice, thanks Furbs my one was just taken from the ROF website.

[Chivas]

Thankyou for clarifying some of your answers. I realize that the rude manor in which some of them were asked can make a civil answer difficult. Yes the forums are very negative, but I still think the silent majority understand the difficulties, and will continue to support the series, "IF" the reviews are good, and substantial improvements are made to many of COD's issues in the Sequel.

You mentioned that the community hasn't yet provided the level of input you had hoped for in regards to campaign building etc. There was less community input because the sim wasn't playable for a large portion of the community that could have made these improvements. Now that you have addressed many of the performance issues this aspect should improve. Campaign builders seem to be having issues using some complex features in the FMB. Are there problems in the FMB, and if so what problems are your team addressing?

You mentioned there won't be anymore aircraft built for COD. I understand this, but it should be mentioned whether its obvious or not that some aircraft built for the Sequels will be available and historical to the Channel map. Or am I wrong to assume this?

[philip.ed]

A better example of what BOM should be aiming at...

http://imageshack.us/a/img683/8981/new5fx.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img850/6681/day3l.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4170/day1j.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img718/6006/rof20110716075156062.jpg

Furbs, what are your RoF video settings? Those look superb.

[*Buzzsaw*]

Salute

Here is the Google translation of Luthier's replies to the Russian forums. Obviously the translation lacks:

Good evening,

Russian answering questions in Russian, in English to English. Translate back and forth is no power, sorry. Many of the questions and answers are the same. For others - the hope that someone on the forums to help with the translation.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...508 # post465508

So the answer to your questions. Sorry it took so long.

Example addin for online users themselves to create the normal online mode (coop, online campaign) will be released? Now there is an example for offline.
(About Add-in: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=198)
Programmers who can do it, the eyeballs are busy working on the sequel. They are all on, the sword of Damocles hanging time - just as in any way.

The prospect of the bridges in the sequel, will change? Will the bridge obstacle, or will remain gorgeous and slaboispolzuemym logic in building the project entourage?
Do not understand the question. Especially not think about bridges, to me they just are not in the priority issues in the simulator. Which ones would you like to change in the MM (bridge model)?

Very interesting to know, how would you, not being a project manager and simple user, would rate the current state of the game "Battle of Britain"? For example, the five-point system. Thank you.
The game will not be evaluated, but a trick question on your strong five points.

Counted there now inductance, if not, whether included in the foreseeable future.
Do you have a more specific critique of the flight model?
Maybe I have become callous and angry, but I am inclined to consider such issues as the traps, the reason is not dependent on the answer to shout "Yeah!" And pour a bucket of mud.

The question is - Are there any plans in WT adjustment FM aircraft, high-altitude flight plan? Whether an existing aircraft of its historic ceiling? First of all fighters interested, Mass, and sleeping. Now obvious shortage on altitude, seemingly as promised to fix.
See the readme for the latest patch.

1. Does the 1C: MG visit Igromir 2012?
As visitors.

2. During the upgrade of the graphics core was disabled a number of visual effects (for example, the reflections on the water surface, disturbances of water when flying over it, etc.). Which of them will return in the final version of the patch, and with which it will have to say goodbye forever?
Reflections in the water has never been. Perturbations of water do not remember, check.

3. Since the problem could be the cornerstone for a sequel, I want to ask: What is the success in identifying and correcting the causes dramatic drawdown FPS when using the zoom at relatively massive (about 10 aircraft syazannyh battle) battles online in WT?
Check in the latest patch.

4. Do you plan to fix sticking onboard fire shooters, if a player plays a hand?
Planned a lot of changes and improvements in the sequel.

5. Will the fixed mirrors on British planes?
Almost managed to shove in the release candidate, decided not to delay it because of the mirrors. Planned (though I think it is purely cosmetic show-off, a mirror for gameplay rarely helps)

1) Will the announcement of a sequel this year?
I do not know, I did not accept this decision.

2) What will be detailing the "inner space" managed nazemki in the sequel, if it is natural?
Will be like in the video, which released. For some vehicles do more detailed cockpit, for less important to leave just the outer model, or as it is now in a pod.

3) Will the anti-aircraft guided us in WT
No.

I would like to clarify whether it is possible to move the location of the custom skins / tracks / campaigns / missions in the folder "My Documents" folder in the game.
This is due to several disadvantages:
1. Due to the current location of foul system partition. Many users have to install Win uses a separate / screw. With such accommodation space in this section / screw quickly begins to run out. When will the big campaign with a lot of skins, it becomes very critical.
2. Often in Win rally from folder "My Documents" is very hard to pull out. Accordingly, the probability of loss of all campaigns, user settings, etc.
3. When you reinstall Win easier to move one folder with the game than to steam and look for that forgot to fold.
No, not planned.

1.When we expect stats online?
2.Budet whether your site in WT and sequels?
3.Onlayn project from you we expect?
Unfortunately, I can not say about a sequel to the Official announcement.

The upcoming sequel will be set every single game, or as add-on to WT?
See above.

1) Will the fixed inverted axis motion for hand guns?
In what sense?

2) A new model of behavior of the chassis is scheduled to be a sequel or in a pod?
Sequel.

1) Do you plan to release a detailed guide on letabam available in WT? What systems and how to implement?
2) From the red kraft this all is not well ...
Not planned. The plan has always been that of flying in a pod will be on historical RLE. If somewhere RLE do not fit, the only people who can write a guide, the programmers airplane people - and these are the same people who can bring the game in line with the flight manual for the same time.
In general, the situation with detailed documentation on the aircraft in a pod is no different from the old IL-2.

1) How's the weather effects? Will be tested in WT, or just go into the sequel?
Sequel

2) Pine trees and forests will be?
I do not know, depends on glavhuda, the landscape in the sequel to work hard.

3) I personally think that the museum arhivazhen. At least from the oldies (old IL-2) to transfer. Do?
Something like that, yes, we plan for the sequel.

4) What are your plans for the visualization of ejection, as the first person, and from the third? Little man to the plane can walk / run?
I will not talk about yet scheduled with human figures. It is early.

1) Will materialized forest (kollizhn with trees)?
Include it - an easy and fast way to make the game unplayable. Trees too much. I already wrote about it. If you do the exact conflict - fpsa floor, and less accurate - it makes no sense, flying through a tree without damage, and explode in a meter of the second.
Plan to radically reconsider the approach in the sequel.

2) Will it be corrected FM fighters and bombers in WT even closer to the TTD. You said it - even the graphics were up to you?
See the latest patch.

3) Is there any hope that it will be possible to include online weather - clouds (a thunderstorm can probably only dream) and how it will affect the performance of the game?
Not in a pod.
In a thunderstorm usually fought.

4) Ilya, please do statistics for bombers.
Just can not, see the answer about addin for online higher.

5) The above mentioned, again - enable inductance as suspension of external bombs, opening bomb bays and landing gear cutting in pieces - the influence of the game no no.
So you're talking about inductive or drag?

6) Will there be subsumed bomb sights for bombers?
The list is, the list is long, I do not know, get over it.

7) Will make the correct, smooth zoom, and not as now Delete-End-PegeDown
There is a release. In the management section Camera "hold to change the field of view."

8) Does that include all the animations in the cockpit, we saw initially 1.5.goda ago with which to work, and not as it is now - i pressed the button, and even warm up is optional. Go to the simplification (we did not aerokvaka) - a death project.
A more specific?

If my current weight excess over the take-off, especially in the G50?
It seems to have ruled all the parameters in the latest patch, check.

"The next time this game is updated only when you set the sequel"
This is how to understand? Both games will use the same "core", but to fly at night sleep (for example) along with the mud (again, for example) will not?
But why. Will fly to sleeping with silt.

Most concerned with such problems:
1) Processing of input, especially the review. At quite a decent FPS> 30 review antsy. There is no way to hang the approach on the axle, you can not use the mouse wheel. No adjustment of force of PF in the game.
Will has normal review for owners TrakIr? (Meaning to Shift + F1)
Will has normal zoom? (On axis)
In a pod will not change the type or camera, you can not.

2) AI bots and radio commands. IL-2 4.11 in this regard, just a sample. It may be involved in the sequel rights, writing AI for 4.11?
He also wrote for Bob.

3) Special effects (fire, fire, smoke, falling), far behind the best examples of mods for IL-2. Explosions only look better. Do you plan to work in this direction?
For the sequel.

Will has normal FF (or return as in IL-2, loading pens without effects FF)?
In the sequel.

1) You, as developers, have remained "MG" and now your team simply Department / Unit 1C, as your team Now?
Call it what you want.

2) On / off by pressing the record flight assigned button (so the menu does not go) in the patch do?
Hmmm think about it, I can not say yet.

3) if my mirror?
Planning.

4) In the betas sometimes had the impression that the optimization done for close to maximum settings (put everything on the average - the picture worse, and there is almost no increase in FPS). Fix it or have the wrong impression?
I do not know, it's hard to say. Changed guts game, they should work the same for all settings. Schedule just did not improve for specific settings.

5) From your team has everything, who should have been on vacation? (I mean that the strength and inspiration to type?)
Everyone but me.

6) Sort of a comparator will be? And in the sequel? (Long time ago promised in-game graphics and will be based on data from the game)
Yes, I wanted to stick to Bob. Unfortunately GUI written in a pod in a very terrible sluggish environment WPF, which is a nightmare to work with - all it took twice as much time, and is twice as worse. Therefore, much of the planned and could not do, and for the moment to climb back there and change - adding a GUI is not possible.
In the sequel to do GUI in a completely new environment, throw out all the old GUI. There are planning schedules, comparator, etc etc.

7) Do you think that the knockdown rounds set to how much you can realistically or else rules?
We are happy.

8) if my stats in the game? (The bugs wrote that the statistics in the game at all on my do not like). Maybe its the same, if corrected, reset the last patch?
Statistics are not reset, it is stored in incentive. Control it was not us. We there can only add, not subtract, or reset.

9) What are now working graphics programmers? (Smoothing time delayed)
Landscape and clouds for a sequel.

1) Will together with the promised weather effects (rain, snow, overcast), improved the visual part of the usual clouds? Will there be middle clouds, cumulonimbus clouds and lightning (Cumulonimbus)?
Completely new cloud until the very early stages. We will see what we can do on this technology without killing FPS.

2) If possible, one question that probably more to do with the sequel. Whether there will be a career mode (moving the pilot's rank, awards, management squadron, etc.) and whether it will be dynamic?
Oooo!

To be returned to, or at least a patch cloud shadows on the ground?
Back like

Is it possible to re-implement the aircraft from the comfort of the mission?
No. Never intended we dislike this idea in a pod.

Will the next project is released for free testing or only closed beta test? If there is a closed test, who will be a test?
It is too early to discuss.

When some expect the announcement? This year, at least?
I do not know, I did not decide.

1) Ilya tell whether Rule texture Bf109E, which now looks much worse than the texture of the same Spitfire and Hurricane, made great? I do not think pokrivlyu soul, if I say that it is not only my opinion, but an objective collective opinion of a large part of the game fans.
Do not plan to redraw.

2) Will the explosion / flame / shots of light sources? Currently, the fire in this game is beautifully drawn, but the fire is not.
It seems to have done in the last patch.

Ilya tell what exactly will be sold from the theme "Wish List and requests for transfer to 1C: MG." and would it ever be implemented? Please do not give the total and, if possible, a detailed answer.
So to speak. If something of this topic is not implemented in the release candidate, the chances that fall into the final patch quite small.

And what You promised us half a year ago?
Not for Bob. Still secret when dismantled, show.

[esmiol]

cool.... a lot of in the sequel....can't speak about....

all this time to wait for this!!!!!!!

omg!

[major_setback]

Luthier, thanks for the answers. Carry on the good work.

With no money coming in, and still a long time before any does, I can understand your frustrations when the game still doesn't work as planned. It's a desperate situation and the pressure must be enormous. Especially for those at the top.

Without CoD working well as a base then no move forward. No move forward means (no more sales and no more wages for developers and) no more game.

The core of the game needs to be right and that is what you are fixing. Most of the forum complaints are directed at other issues though. I wish some of the forum community had a better understanding of the difficulties involved.

I didn't perceive any rudeness in the answers. It was like one pilot talking to another, with a bit of raw humour. I prefer it that way.

Remember that those waiting patiently for the sequel will never be heard.

[JG52Krupi]

Quote:
2. Why are weathering layers of skins unable to be packed in such a way that they can be modified or improved by users?
We hated seeing horrible flat user-made skins everywhere in the original Il-2, so we settled on the technology that keeps the lower-end of the quality bar firmly set where no user effort can nudge it lower – even if that means also setting the ceiling for great skin makers.

Original

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/shot_20101223_162229.jpg


Current

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6637227671_3b4192142a_o.jpg

Please look at Luthier!!!!

[furbs]

Furbs, what are your RoF video settings? Those look superb.


I use NV inspector and a custom profile.

I can send you it if you want?

Those clouds are just fantastic, almost no FPS drop and water on the goggles.

I hope BOM will be able to compete.

[philip.ed]

I use NV inspector and a custom profile.

I can send you it if you want?

Those clouds are just fantastic, almost no FPS drop and water on the goggles.

I hope BOM will be able to compete.

I have an ATI card, so it won't work, will it?

[Wolf_Rider]

~

Because we’re a business. Our goal is to make money. Fixing Cliffs of Dover does not bring in any money, and it has not pretty much from the start. Even if we spend another year working on nothing but Cliffs of Dover and release a super-mega-ultra update with co-op, blackjack, and hookers, how many copies do you honestly believe the game will sell?

~




That would depend on how good the hookers are :grin:


Thanks for the feedback Luthier and love the sense of humour (I don't envy the position between a rock and a hard place you seem to be in)

[Dano]

Original


Current


Please look at Luthier!!!!

For pitys sake, if you are going to post comparison shots to prove your point can you at least get one at a similar time of day so as not to muddy the issue.

[planespotter]

A better example of what BOM should be aiming at...

http://imageshack.us/a/img683/8981/new5fx.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img850/6681/day3l.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4170/day1j.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img718/6006/rof20110716075156062.jpg

+1

My point with BoB2 clouds is not that they compare with RoF, agree they do not, but that they are better than CoD many ways. No fps hit, multi altitudes layers and types, and you can hide, the AI can't see in them.

RoF is the new benchmark tho.

The prob is clearly these devs have blinkers like a horse, which they need to lose, and change mindset before they will have success. B6 admits they don't play their own game, so they obviously don't play other sims in a serious way to see what the competition is doing.

Except War Thunder. I bet and hope they are playing that to learn from.

[JG52Krupi]

I really hope they not learning anything from war thunder... :P

[Chivas]

+1

My point with BoB2 clouds is not that they compare with RoF, agree they do not, but that they are better than CoD many ways. No fps hit, multi altitudes layers and types, and you can hide, the AI can't see in them.

RoF is the new benchmark tho.

The prob is clearly these devs have blinkers like a horse, which they need to lose, and change mindset before they will have success. B6 admits they don't play their own game, so they obviously don't play other sims in a serious way to see what the competition is doing.

Except War Thunder. I bet and hope they are playing that to learn from.

The AI can see thru the clouds in BOB WOV, unless they changed it in the last couple of years. There was a rumour a few years ago that the AI couldn't see thru clouds but it was untrue. B6 admitted "he" didn't play COD, not "they don't play their own game".

I hope WarThunder does give the new IL-2 series some competition, hopefully its alot better than WOP with its small maps and partial airstarts that were only good for mindless furbals. I bought the nineteen dollar version of WarThunder, but all the offline missions are locked at least in the version I have, so I haven't had much interest in flying it yet, to make any kind of evaluation.

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

They cannot see through the clouds. It has been changed for quite a while.

[VO101_Tom]

I hope WarThunder does give the new IL-2 series some competition
...

:grin: :grin: :grin:
You seriously expect any competition from an arcade MMO game, that can be played with mouse and keyboard? Are you kidding me?

[JG52Krupi]

:grin: :grin: :grin:
You seriously expect any competition from an arcade MMO game, that can be played with mouse and keyboard? Are you kidding me?

Exactly :lol:

Not sure if it's true but I hear that you can't belly land in warthunder as you just blow up and from the videos the damage model makes vanilla 1946 look good!!

[Stublerone]

Lol, :) Still don't know, why this warthunder is still mentioned. It is not comparable, you do not have the viewing distances, the lod, the behaviour of invironment. So it is not relevant to learn anything from warthunder, except perhaps some effects, when they run better. But how to evaluate, if the game runs in atotally different kind of genre with totally different goal? I bet, that due to its lack of details in every aspect, I will be able to run it at 60fps easily. It is a console game. Please do not compare complicated games with easy programmed games, which could be made with some web designers doing a different profession just for fun.

Sorry, but this is total fail to ever compare it. It is like comparing world of tanks with tiger vs t34. And its like asking, why tiger vs t34 needs more resources, although wot has better graphics (by the way: wot is fun sometimes, but the new reworked engine is a big szep back, although all the casual gamers do not see it technically).

Please leave warthunder, console il2 games and world of warplanes out of this sim forum, as they are a totally other world.

[VO101_Tom]

Exactly :lol:

Not sure if it's true but I her that you can't belly land in warthunder as you just blow up and from the videos the damage model makes vanilla 1946 look good!!

I saw video with external view, external crosshairs, and the Spit shot down both wing of He 111 with one burst... :shock: "detailed and complex damage system."... suuuure ;)

[JG52Uther]

Come on guys, please don't turn this in to a discussion thread.

[tintifaxl]

...

[David198502]

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?
after 1,5 years, there is still too much confusion about the different types of planes, and how they perform the best way,and how to get the most out of them.
For example every month there is another thread about the prop pitch management of the 109, and even among the experienced 109pilots there doesnt seem to be a consensus on whats the best way...
for example: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34328
there is historical information around in the net and in books, but we dont know whats implemented in game, what works best, and how it is intended to work...


Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.

trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...

[klem]

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?.........................

Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.

trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...

Isn't this the point, the FMs are too far off?

Luthier has said 'Absolutely' to putting more effort into getting the CoD FMs right if we demonstrate they are wrong. That is where our effort should be and his efforts will follow.

Even if you get the best info on how to fly "the CoD 109" properly it will still not be right if the FM isn't brought into line with the flight manual.

Someone needs to fly the 109 against historical data and give him the results. Most people are just complaining the FMs are not right and posting a few words about it ("its too slow at SL", "it doesn't deliver 1.3ata at x metres altitude") but not proving the point effectively so who is Luthier to believe when member A just says one thing and member B says something different? Fly the tests and give him the data from his own FMs. You can do this by hand, making notes etc as you fly (tricky!) or use something like I use here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=465316&postcount=10

And yes, it does take some time and effort whichever way you do it. But why should Luthier listen to any beta tester who doesn't return proper test results?

[Fergal69]

I would like to express a thank you for Luther for taking the time to go through questions raised & for answering them.

I experienced a big improvement just by upgrading from Windows XP to Winows 7 (64 bit), so flying over London now, albeit on lowish settings doesn't cause my system to freeze, so I'm happy.

When funds allow, then I'll be working on upgrading the rest of my system, starting with a graphics card.

PS - developers/programmers - are you all in a Lottery syndicate & should you win would you all quit or carry on improving ClOD? I for one wouldn't blame you for all walking out & saying stuff it after some of the comments that have been made.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

And yes, it does take some time and effort whichever way you do it. But why should Luthier listen to any beta tester who doesn't return proper test results?+1

[Chivas]

They cannot see through the clouds. It has been changed for quite a while.

Around three years ago it was rumoured that the AI couldn't see thru clouds in BOB WOV, but the developer set the record straight and said they could, but that doesn't mean they haven't changed it since then, although I think its unlikely.

[JG5_emil]

My biggest disappointment is what has been said about Coops.

Also some confusion whether CLOD will benefit from updates in the sequal i.e. improved clouds/water or what ever. Is this going to work like IL2 did?

Other than that I am a bit more impressed after the 2nd set of answers, I don't think the jokes in the first lot were such a good idea as flight simmers are slightly passionate about the subject.

Also fairly impressed with the patch. Still not played online since December last year but I am a little more tempted with the apparent improvements to spotting aircraft and them not vanishing as the dots change to a shape.

Please please think about a way to implement some form of coop other than the dogfight server type we have now.

[Tree_UK]

My biggest disappointment is what has been said about Coops.

Also some confusion whether CLOD will benefit from updates in the sequal i.e. improved clouds/water or what ever. Is this going to work like IL2 did?

Other than that I am a bit more impressed after the 2nd set of answers, I don't think the jokes in the first lot were such a good idea as flight simmers are slightly passionate about the subject.

Also fairly impressed with the patch. Still not played online since December last year but I am a little more tempted with the apparent improvements to spotting aircraft and them not vanishing as the dots change to a shape.

Please please think about a way to implement some form of coop other than the dogfight server type we have now.

I understand why Luthier is not wanting to address the coop issue, if he fixes it for us then there is a good chance we could get online wars happening again, this may interfere with his plans for an MMO later which could be a potential cash cow for him.

[skarden]

Pure speculation and almost certainly bullsh*t

[Tree_UK]

Pure speculation and almost certainly bullsh*t

Explain to me then why Luthier will not address the coop problem in CLOD or the sequel when so many of his customers have said they think it is a very important feature?

[skarden]

I don't have to, Luither has already explained it, 3rd answer down, please pay attention to the last sentence in particular.
It's written in plain text so I don't know how you missed it.

Here it is again in case you did somehow miss it.


Luither

Redoing co-op is a huge task. We are a business. We have to make a profit somewhere somehow. We cannot keep pumping resources and releasing free patches for Cliffs of Dover forever.
And regarding not using our products in the future if we do not redo co-op now. I believe the majority in this community actually will. If we offer a much more comprehensive co-op experience in a future product, and especially if such an experience still allows you a trip back in time to fly some Spits and 109s over the Channel, well, I really hope that most people will want to get the sequel.
To reiterate - I've never said that we'll never address co-op, I've only said we cannot do it within the Cliffs of Dover project.

[GF_Mastiff]

ok so that means not in this version of Cliff of Dover IL2 Sturmovik.

We will see a more robust IL2 Sturmovik Version next year?

with the Channel map in it?

[GraveyardJimmy]

We will see a more robust IL2 Sturmovik Version next year?

with the Channel map in it?

Their alpha of the new sequel will be ready next year for their internal roadmap (according to b6).

Would think the sequel would be ready 2013/2014. Its anyones guess when i suppose. The engine is the same as the one they are using now so its the GUI remake, added features and models that need the most work (and maps).

[Tree_UK]

I don't have to, Luither has already explained it, 3rd answer down, please pay attention to the last sentence in particular.
It's written in plain text so I don't know how you missed it.

Here it is again in case you did somehow miss it.


Luither

Redoing co-op is a huge task. We are a business. We have to make a profit somewhere somehow. We cannot keep pumping resources and releasing free patches for Cliffs of Dover forever.
And regarding not using our products in the future if we do not redo co-op now. I believe the majority in this community actually will. If we offer a much more comprehensive co-op experience in a future product, and especially if such an experience still allows you a trip back in time to fly some Spits and 109s over the Channel, well, I really hope that most people will want to get the sequel.
To reiterate - I've never said that we'll never address co-op, I've only said we cannot do it within the Cliffs of Dover project.

lol, and you really believe this?

[SG1_Lud]

lol, and you really believe this?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=luthier%27s+coop&l=1

[skarden]

You asked for an explanation and there it is, plain and simple, from the horses mouth so to speak.
if your the kind of person that doesn't believe something when it's in plain english and constantly finds the negative in everything well then too bad for you I guess.

If you don't believe them then let them know by not buying the next game.
Coming here, reading things straight from the devs and then making up what can only be described as BS to better suite an agenda, troll or just save you from getting bored at work seems extremely childish and just plain paranoid to me.

Good luck with that.

[Trumper]

You asked for an explanation and there it is, plain and simple, from the horses mouth so to speak.
if your the kind of person that doesn't believe something when it's in plain english and constantly finds the negative in everything well then too bad for you I guess.

If you don't believe them then let them know by not buying the next game.
Coming here, reading things straight from the devs and then making up what can only be described as BS to better suite an agenda, troll or just save you from getting bored at work seems extremely childish and just plain paranoid to me.

Good luck with that.
Actually Luthiers answers prove everything you have just stated above,i won't believe a single thing Luthier says now until it is proven ,tried and trusted.
The proof will be in the pudding--not in what he claims or states

[Chivas]

lol, and you really believe this?

You don't believe anything the devs say, which begs the question, why are you still here? You still don't get it, Luthier's is stating what they are trying to achieve, there are no promises, there are approx 40 members of the dev team working on different aspects of the sim, each fix/improvment will be applied when they are ready, thru patches or new addons. The huge delays have put the series in jeopardy, anything can happen at this point, many of them not good.

[skarden]

Fair enough, and that's your right of course.
Making that decision based on what's actually been said and your passed experience is sensible.
I've made the same decision based on the same things and just come up with a different opinion, different strokes for different folks and all that.

I've played IL-2 for a long time and it's given me faith in them that they'll produce the goods again, I also appreciate Luithers brand of honesty, again, in whats actually been said not what people make up in their heads.

Hopefully when the sequel comes out we'll both be happy campers

[GloDark7]

The fact that the sequel will be using the same engine tells me all I need to know. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcFd5j1cios

Glo

[Chivas]

The fact that the sequel will be using the same engine tells me all I need to know. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcFd5j1cios

Glo

So you think that the devs can't improve COD's game engine? I know your a fan of Warthunder. Gaijin is using the same game engine for Warthunder that it used for their less than successful WOP sim and I would imagine that Gaijin is doing some major improvements to their game engine to make Warthunder a success. Atleast to have any chance of drawing support from the IL-2 crowd.

[Sandstone]

So you think that the devs can't improve COD's game engine?

Their performance to date suggests they probably can't.

[GloDark7]

So you think that the devs can't improve COD's game engine? I know your a fan of Warthunder. Gaijin is using the same game engine for Warthunder that it used for their less than successful WOP sim and I would imagine that Gaijin is doing some major improvements to their game engine to make Warthunder a success. Atleast to have any chance of drawing support from the IL-2 crowd.

I'm afraid I have very little confidence in that area sadly. After all this time since CloD's release there have been no major breakthroughs with updates to the engine and it's difficult to be optimistic about it at all. Hearing that the sequel will be using this same engine fills me with dread.

Yes, I am a fan of Gaijin's work and also an IL-2/MG fan for many years before this. I am very impressed with Gaijin's WoP (Dagor) engine. Regardless of what you may think about WoP as a title and entry to the genre, it's graphics engine set a new bar. It may have had an unusual green filter on the Britain map(!) but the engine itself was a breakthrough. It makes perfect sense that Gaijin would use this foundation and improve upon it for their next project. In stark contrast 1C have an engine that was broken on day one, has seen little improvement after over a year and THIS is the foundation for their sequel! How can this instil any confidence? It certainly doesn't for me I'm afraid. This engine has gone as far as it can go in my eyes. IT is the bottleneck, not the hardware.

Now, we are getting one last update for CloD. A make or break update really. Sadly CloD is already broken so it either 'makes' it or it stays broken. Then how long till the sequel arrives that uses the SAME engine?

1C may not learn from their mistakes, but the fan base will.

Glo

[Mysticpuma]

Sadly I do have to agree. Gaijin may only have small maps but the graphics engine for the lighting, clouds, ground objects and many more VISUAL effects is completely superior, HOWEVER the detail of the cockpits and aircraft themselves are not comparable.

The Green tinge Glo refers to isn't really an issue as a quick tweak in the graphics engine could fix this in seconds.

I would love to see IL2 1946 imported into the WoP or WT game engine. That way we get great clouds, great landscape, great reflections, lighting and huge benefits.

The only thing that IL2 needs to bring across is the 3D models for the aircraft, the FM and DM (once netcode and patches have been done).

The GRAPHICS engine if modified for CloD or BoM is far superior and is actually working and runs at full detail (Cinema Mode) on reasonable systems. Not the beasts that everyone has to employ to even get 30-fps in CloD.


Look, I like IL2: 1946 it's incredible. We already know that CloD is dead and now we wait to see if the 19-months of fixes they tried to do in CloD can be thrown out of the window and the new Graphics engine (hang on isn't it the same one?) will work fine?

If Gaijin had created the GRAPHICS engine for ClOD no-one would be sitting here bleating about not being able to run it smoothly, tree pop-up, tree collisions not working, building pop-up, draw distance...no-one (other than the die-hards of course!), but they didn't.

So now we can wait and see if Luthier can actually get rid of the 'Legacy' graphics engine from IL2 and CloD (both had horrendous pop-up buildings and textures) and start with the 'new' all-singing, all-dancing and fully working Graphics engine.

No-one doubts that CloD and IL2 are far superior in Simulation but I would disagree with anyone who says the immersion is fine, as Graphics make you believe what you are seeing and the clouds, rain, smoke, fire are all superior in WoP and WT than that in CloD but I'd have to question Gaijin's Graphics against the detail and realism of DM/FM and much better damage modelling of fire and smoke/fuel leak in the modded HSFX 6.01 (and soon to be 4.12).

As much as I may harp on about this clip, nothing in IL" or CloD matches the weather and cloud effects (true opaque clouds = 3D fighting above and below) and no pop-up of buildings.

Surely the 'far' superior and expert 1C can produce this at a minimum when the 'lowly' Gaijin who many treat with disdain, can manage this?

http://youtu.be/QJF_oPrvNtU

So if the 'lowly' Gaijin can produce the above with a 'rubbish' game engine, what the heck are 1C doing with all their experience?

Anyway, I still hope for the best with CloD, but HSFX 6.01 is my ride of choice while we wait for another 2-years for BoM.

But I still dabble with Wings of Prey...it looks amazing and so does the terrain!

MP

[Chivas]

I'm afraid I have very little confidence in that area sadly. After all this time since CloD's release there have been no major breakthroughs with updates to the engine and it's difficult to be optimistic about it at all. Hearing that the sequel will be using this same engine fills me with dread.

Yes, I am a fan of Gaijin's work and also an IL-2/MG fan for many years before this. I am very impressed with Gaijin's WoP (Dagor) engine. Regardless of what you may think about WoP as a title and entry to the genre, it's graphics engine set a new bar. It may have had an unusual green filter on the Britain map(!) but the engine itself was a breakthrough. It makes perfect sense that Gaijin would use this foundation and improve upon it for their next project. In stark contrast 1C have an engine that was broken on day one, has seen little improvement after over a year and THIS is the foundation for their sequel! How can this instil any confidence? It certainly doesn't for me I'm afraid. This engine has gone as far as it can go in my eyes. IT is the bottleneck, not the hardware.

Now, we are getting one last update for CloD. A make or break update really. Sadly CloD is already broken so it either 'makes' it or it stays broken. Then how long till the sequel arrives that uses the SAME engine?

1C may not learn from their mistakes, but the fan base will.

Glo

If WOP was as good as you say the Il-2 community would have moved to the Gaijin development in droves. That never happened the SimHq Gaijin forum is dead, WOP maps were too small for anything other than mindless furbals, and I haven't seen anything yet that has changed. Personally I hope Gaijin will be able to improve their game engine to include the Global Map they've been talking about and still have decent terrain. Contrary to what you say COD has made advancements in the sound engine, performance, FM, engine management features, and should continue to improve until the Sequel is released. The only difference between the COD development and the Gaijin development is the NDA which effectively stops most negative points of view.

[flyingblind]

I find this attitude rather strange in a thread where Luthier is answering questions from the forum folk after dozens of vitriolic posts on the lack of communication. As soon as he opens his mouth he is a bare faced liar. I hope no one is expecting lots more communication anytime soon.

I can't help feeling that some seem to have a rather tenuous grasp on reality. Sure, you have bought a game and are entitled to something fit for purpose but on receipt if it is not you are also entitled to return it and get your money back. If you choose to hang on to it then that is up to you.

Clearly customers are crucial to a business and a business needs to keep it's customers happy if it wants to be there for the long haul. But as Luthier has said quite bluntly that the only way to keep enough customers happy to survive is by providing a game that is good enough for large numbers to buy and enjoy. Trying to placate a small bunch of vocal malcontents who's main aim in life is to hurl abuse at him is a complete waste of time.

The reality is that he can no longer afford to bring CloD fully up to scratch before releasing the sequel. The sequel will benefit CloD but if it is not a success on release then I think you can say goodbye to the whole series. What will make it a success is good reviews as much as comments in forums. Don't forget that there will be one final official update for CloD that should make it far better and worth your money.

And what about your money on an individual basis? Assuming that you paid full price and didn't get it discounted or on the cheap from Russia than it would be about £50 or 50 bucks or whatever. If there are 50 people working on CloD then that is a pound or a euro or a dollar each. What can you get for that? A cup of coffee? Or maybe two if from a vending machine or three as they are in Moscow.

So all the little group of Mr Angrys together on this forum have done for CloD financially is kept the office in coffee for a week or two at most. Go figure.

I also think the latest update is a good improvement and that they can deliver a good series. I wonder if many people would not just be happy with the old IL2 but with CloD graphics. But CloD starts where IL2 left off. Take just the question on a manual for operating planes. With IL2 one set of controls worked for all planes so only one basic manual was needed especially as engine management was pretty basic. With CloD they want you to be able to use the actual manuals used by the pilots of the time for each different plane. How cool is that.

It might not be quite there yet but I really believe Luthiers vision is for a grown up game for adults and certainly not something for the Xbox generation.

[Chivas]

Their performance to date suggests they probably can't.

Thats definitely a possibility especially if you disregard all the aspects of the sim that are already working. They have made advancements in the sound engine, performance, FM, Engine Management. Time will tell, but the longer they obtain financial support to work on the sim, the more likely things will get sorted.

[Icebear]

Thats definitely a possibility especially if you disregard all the aspects of the sim that are already working. They have made advancements in the sound engine, performance, FM, Engine Management. Time will tell, but the longer they obtain financial support to work on the sim, the more likely things will get sorted.

Sim(ulation) or MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online Game)? These are two completely different pair of shoes as they address two completely different range of customers. If I got Luther right his new cash cow or "sequel" will be a MMO with complex engine management. So neither fish nor fowl and too late as the competition already entered the market!

Good luck ladies !

[Lexicon]

If WOP was as good as you say the Il-2 community would have moved to the Gaijin development in droves. That never happened the SimHq Gaijin forum is dead.

The WT forum is dead probably beacause all the fans are busy having a blast playing WT ! And although its under NDA, I don't read that many complaints anywhere...yet.
But THIS forum is active due principally to the fact that a lot of fans are very disapointed and feel that complaining at this point is more enjoyable than playing CLOD ! ;)

Nite !

[Chivas]

Sim(ulation) or MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online Game)? These are two completely different pair of shoes as they address two completely different range of customers. If I got Luther right his new cash cow or "sequel" will be a MMO with complex engine management. So neither fish nor fowl and too late as the competition already entered the market!

Good luck ladies !

They may be two completely different pair of shoes, but they can be done with basicly the same game engine, and add another source of revenue. It remains to be seen what direction the development will head. It could go only the Sequel route, only the MMO route, or both. Both would be better for revenue, but I'm not sure how difficult it would be to support both, even though they use almost exactly the same content, other than an MMO might not require extensive AI, and AI command software.

[GloDark7]

If WOP was as good as you say the Il-2 community would have moved to the Gaijin development in droves. That never happened the SimHq Gaijin forum is dead, WOP maps were too small for anything other than mindless furbals, and I haven't seen anything yet that has changed.

Did you properly read my post? I never expressed my opinions on the merits of WoP as a title. I said nothing of the game itself or what I think of it. I was talking about the engine. It's foundation, ground breaking engine compared to CloD's broken engine (from launch to present). It seems crazy to me that 1C will continue on this same path with the sequel as there does not seem much hope for the existing engine. What can they do with it in the next year that they didn't do over the last one?

The SimHQ Gaijin titles forum is dead indeed. A very different story exists over at the official Gaijin forums where there is an enormous amount of activity that is hidden from public view in the private forum. Activity I can't discuss in detail due to NDA.

Personally I hope Gaijin will be able to improve their game engine to include the Global Map they've been talking about and still have decent terrain. Contrary to what you say COD has made advancements in the sound engine, performance, FM, engine management features, and should continue to improve until the Sequel is released. The only difference between the COD development and the Gaijin development is the NDA which effectively stops most negative points of view.

I have both positive and negative points of view on WT but respect the NDA enough not to talk about either or the title's development outside of the Closed Beta. I wouldn't be much use to development if I said everything was just peachy and don't change anything you great guys!

Like I said, I have been an IL-2 fan for years and Storm of War was the great hope and dream. I am a fan of the genre and will add what I can to my hobby collection which should include CloD. Currently it is not on my SSD and wont be until I see the results of the final update (Steam backup waiting on an external drive). All hope lies there but any optimism I had has turned to almost complete pessimism over the past year and I won't be holding my breath. Any improvements made so far (placebo or real) always seem to come with a side-order of things that are broken.

How can CloD "continue to improve" as you say, if this is the final update (when it hits Steam)? This is it! If it remains broken after this last update, community developed content won't offer much salvation if half of it still doesn't work.

Glo

[Frequent_Flyer]

I find this attitude rather strange in a thread where Luthier is answering questions from the forum folk after dozens of vitriolic posts on the lack of communication. As soon as he opens his mouth he is a bare faced liar. I hope no one is expecting lots more communication anytime soon.

I can't help feeling that some seem to have a rather tenuous grasp on reality. Sure, you have bought a game and are entitled to something fit for purpose but on receipt if it is not you are also entitled to return it and get your money back. If you choose to hang on to it then that is up to you.

Clearly customers are crucial to a business and a business needs to keep it's customers happy if it wants to be there for the long haul. But as Luthier has said quite bluntly that the only way to keep enough customers happy to survive is by providing a game that is good enough for large numbers to buy and enjoy. Trying to placate a small bunch of vocal malcontents who's main aim in life is to hurl abuse at him is a complete waste of time.

The reality is that he can no longer afford to bring CloD fully up to scratch before releasing the sequel. The sequel will benefit CloD but if it is not a success on release then I think you can say goodbye to the whole series. What will make it a success is good reviews as much as comments in forums. Don't forget that there will be one final official update for CloD that should make it far better and worth your money.

And what about your money on an individual basis? Assuming that you paid full price and didn't get it discounted or on the cheap from Russia than it would be about £50 or 50 bucks or whatever. If there are 50 people working on CloD then that is a pound or a euro or a dollar each. What can you get for that? A cup of coffee? Or maybe two if from a vending machine or three as they are in Moscow.

So all the little group of Mr Angrys together on this forum have done for CloD financially is kept the office in coffee for a week or two at most. Go figure.

I also think the latest update is a good improvement and that they can deliver a good series. I wonder if many people would not just be happy with the old IL2 but with CloD graphics. But CloD starts where IL2 left off. Take just the question on a manual for operating planes. With IL2 one set of controls worked for all planes so only one basic manual was needed especially as engine management was pretty basic. With CloD they want you to be able to use the actual manuals used by the pilots of the time for each different plane. How cool is that.

It might not be quite there yet but I really believe Luthiers vision is for a grown up game for adults and certainly not something for the Xbox generation.

you make a number of exceellent points. I think Luither may have over promised and under delivered. ultimately actions speak louder than words and if the final patch fixes things within reason the majority should be content. However, there will always be the usual suspects droning on in favor of or against.to join chorus with " the FM's are inaccurate, etc.

[He111]

Thanks luther.

I personally think alot of CLODs problems could be solved by the community, we are here because we love the flight sim, we want it to be as good as it can be, we're not here to rip-off anyone. So look seriously into allowing modding and possibly releasing souce code.

You say the AI does more than stable flight and barrel rolls into the ground, i can't get anything else out of a defiant. in fact i suspect there is no defiant AI code other than that for other fighters.

I also suspect many users have their own favorite planes they'd like added to CLOD, even at their own expense / effort. Allowing this will be bonus for CLOD and cost you nothing! must be considered.

Thanks

.

[Ataros]

Quote:
2. Will the Channel map be available for Co-op in the online mode.
It’s available now.

It is not because of "WPF.Unavailable" error as reported 12 months ago:

1. http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=68697&page=8&p=1713252&viewfull=1#post1713252

2. http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=68697&page=8&p=1713747&viewfull=1#post1713747

3. and possible solution http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=68697&page=8&p=1714240&viewfull=1#post1714240

[Frequent_Flyer]

I have a quick question, Luither said and I beleive tongue in cheek" there are 50 individuals working on BOM". Whatever the real number is how can they pay their employee's with no revenue stream. I know they have not offically announced a sequel however, it will take some time to bring BOM to market. What investor would finance the sequel based on the performance/sales of Clod ?

[flyingblind]

The important thing, I would think, is the man hours needed to get the sequel out. 50 people would get the job done in a fifth of the time as 10 for the same labour cost. The company and other investors must have done the sums and calculated the total cost of the sequel against the likely sales. Obviously there is a point where the likely income moves too close to the costs and a decision has to be made as to whether further outlay can be justified. This is clearly the situation with CloD.

Don't forget, once the engine is done then adding maps and planes and objects to it is a more straight forward and predictable exercise than has been the case to date and a more attractive proposition for investors to take a risk on.

[Insuber]

The market exists - as Il2 and it's many iterations showed. It is said that it sold 5-7 million copies. And the CloD team has hopefully learned a lot from past mishaps.

Cheers!

[BH_woodstock]

hmmmm.
there are so many brilliant and talented and dedicated minds here as i have always stated.
I wonder what would happen if Luthier employed some of you guys that actually love this series(and play it)
There are ideas already going around on how and what to do if given the chance.I salute you all.

@ Luthier if you ever read this:
you have minds and talent here ready and willing to do the task at hand.and for free it seems.My advice is to grasp this situation right in front of you and give these gentlemen the chance and oportunity to do what they love.There is true talent here and it would be a waist to not take that chance.
Who knows what this could lead to in future development.There are still good men in this world so dont be afraid to have a little trust.you need help....these men love this series for ALL the right reasons.

Do it.take your pick of the community and give them the tools they need to help.thats all it takes.

[Toni74]

50 people would get the job done in a fifth of the time as 10 for the same labour cost

so far for theory.

[Chivas]

I have a quick question, Luither said and I beleive tongue in cheek" there are 50 individuals working on BOM". Whatever the real number is how can they pay their employee's with no revenue stream. I know they have not offically announced a sequel however, it will take some time to bring BOM to market. What investor would finance the sequel based on the performance/sales of Clod ?

The performance/sales of COD were certainly not good, and doubtfully covered the costs of the development so far. This is a long term investment that makes money from sales of a number of Theaters using the same game engine. If the devs get the game engine and features sorted before the release of the Sequel, everything should work out. Then its just a matter of pumping out new maps, aircraft, and campaigns, with a few new features thrown in. The game engine was originally designed for more than one type of revenue stream, and the annoucement should make it clearer which direction or directions they are going with the development. The series including the COD map and missions should only get better as features are fixed and added, community mods are built, and average computers become more powerful.

[Chivas]

hmmmm.
there are so many brilliant and talented and dedicated minds here as i have always stated.
I wonder what would happen if Luthier employed some of you guys that actually love this series(and play it)
There are ideas already going around on how and what to do if given the chance.I salute you all.

@ Luthier if you ever read this:
you have minds and talent here ready and willing to do the task at hand.and for free it seems.My advice is to grasp this situation right in front of you and give these gentlemen the chance and oportunity to do what they love.There is true talent here and it would be a waist to not take that chance.
Who knows what this could lead to in future development.There are still good men in this world so dont be afraid to have a little trust.you need help....these men love this series for ALL the right reasons.

Do it.take your pick of the community and give them the tools they need to help.thats all it takes.

The devs planned from the beginning of the new series to provide tools to the community. Unfortunately you can't document and make tools for a game engine that hasn't been completed yet. That said the game engine should be far more refined by the Sequels release. They are planning to release the map SDK tool with the Sequel and probably other tools as time and resources allow during the series.

[Wolf_Rider]

50 people would get the job done in a fifth of the time as 10 for the same labour cost.





Sounds good on paper but doesn't necessarily work in real life

[Insuber]

Sounds good on paper but doesn't necessarily work in real life

It reminds me of the old joke about 9 women doing a baby in one month ... :-)

[SlipBall]

I have a quick question, Luither said and I beleive tongue in cheek" there are 50 individuals working on BOM". Whatever the real number is how can they pay their employee's with no revenue stream. I know they have not offically announced a sequel however, it will take some time to bring BOM to market. What investor would finance the sequel based on the performance/sales of Clod ?


Keep in mind that for Clod the game engine was being created for the series. BOM development will be more of a content, rather than game engine...I think everyone in the development side, know that it was Steam to blame for much of the problems. Now who should we thank for giving us Steam.

[Chivas]

Keep in mind that for Clod the game engine was being created for the series. BOM development will be more of a content, rather than game engine...I think everyone in the development side, know that it was Steam to blame for much of the problems. Now who should we thank for giving us Steam.

The Russian Sequel would be mostly content if the game engine and features were working and completed, but that still isn't the case. They still have alot of work to do on the game engine and features before the release. I'm not sure why you would say that Steam is to blame for anything. I believe it was Ubisoft who wouldn't release COD in the west unless there was something done with the epilepsy filter. The devs have to take the blame for taking so long to finish the game engine and features.

[Frequent_Flyer]

Keep in mind that for Clod the game engine was being created for the series. BOM development will be more of a content, rather than game engine...I think everyone in the development side, know that it was Steam to blame for much of the problems. Now who should we thank for giving us Steam.

I play almost exclusively off line and the game engine and the game features, or rather the lack there of, need a tremendous amount of work yet.

[Feathered_IV]

I play almost exclusively off line and the game engine and the game features, or rather the lack there of, need a tremendous amount of work yet.

I agree. Unfortunately the recent Q&A from luthier seems to suggest that there is very low priority on that, and a sort of willful ignorance about what makes for a next gen single player experience.

[Frequent_Flyer]

I agree. Unfortunately the recent Q&A from luthier seems to suggest that there is very low priority on that, and a sort of willful ignorance about what makes for a next gen single player experience.
I get the sense that Clod was designed from the outset for on-line use. Relying on the good grace of the community members to provide the off line content.

[Chivas]

I get the sense that Clod was designed from the outset for on-line use. Relying on the good grace of the community members to provide the off line content.

The plan from the beginning of SOW, was that the community would be far more involved with this series than they were in the first. The development would make the necessary game engine with FMB, scripts, and Triggers, that would provide and excellent base for those with more knowledge on the subject of missions could add to the sim. This hasn't happened enough yet because the game was released unfinished, largely unplayable, and long before the tools were even close to being ready. I'm quite sure we have more people in the west interested in making missions for the Battle of Britain,etc while the developers have people with more expertise and passion for the history of the Eastern Front. People raved about the work of the modders in the original series, but they couldn't have done squat without the developers game engine. Modders don't have the time or money to build a game engine, we need people with the tenacity of an Oleg who didn't like what WW2 aircombat developers of his time were doing, and did something about it.

[planespotter]

The plan from the beginning of SOW, was that the community would be far more involved with this series than they were in the first. The development would make the necessary game engine with FMB, scripts, and Triggers, that would provide and excellent base for those with more knowledge on the subject of missions could add to the sim. This hasn't happened enough yet because the game was released unfinished, largely unplayable, and long before the tools were even close to being ready. I'm quite sure we have more people in the west interested in making missions for the Battle of Britain,etc while the developers have people with more expertise and passion for the history of the Eastern Front. People raved about the work of the modders in the original series, but they couldn't have done squat without the developers game engine. Modders don't have the time or money to build a game engine, we need people with the tenacity of an Oleg who didn't like what WW2 aircombat developers of his time were doing, and did something about it.

I can't remember did Oleg give the code over to the modders, or did they just crack it and after fighting a long while and banning anyone who even wrote the word 'mod' Oleg gave up trying to stop them? Maybe we need people with the tenacity of those original modders!

[JG26_EZ]

The biggest irritant, is the fact that alot of us wanted a "BOB" map and aircraft in IL2:FB. We were told that we'd never see it because of the new version of IL2, and the fact that it would be centered around BOB. So this was fine, and we waited...

Now, over 10 years later, we hear that Clod will have no more BOB content added, and that we're back off to Russia.

That, and the "ghost" trees, suck big time.

[Chivas]

I can't remember did Oleg give the code over to the modders, or did they just crack it and after fighting a long while and banning anyone who even wrote the word 'mod' Oleg gave up trying to stop them? Maybe we need people with the tenacity of those original modders!

You know aswell as I do the devs never planned to have the original series open to modders, but that changed for the new series. I haven't seen any new game engines being built by the original modders, and you probably never will. Its funny you talk to modders and they have a healthy respect and appreciation for the work the developers have done, that made it possible for them to add to it and refine it.

[Chivas]

The biggest irritant, is the fact that alot of us wanted a "BOB" map and aircraft in IL2:FB. We were told that we'd never see it because of the new version of IL2, and the fact that it would be centered around BOB. So this was fine, and we waited...

Now, over 10 years later, we hear that Clod will have no more BOB content added, and that we're back off to Russia.

That, and the "ghost" trees, suck big time.

You did get a BOB map in IL-2, built by the community. It is unfortunate that the COD was released unfinished and the development eventually had to move on to stay in business, but that certainly doesn't mean there will be no further content for the channel map.

The standalone COD is probably dead, but the channel map, content, features, and aircraft will improve continually over the life of the series. The devs and possibly third parties will be building aircraft for the Sequels that can be used historically on the Channel Map. The community will use the map SDK, supposedly being released with the Sequel to improve the channel map. The community will use the improved AI, AI Commands, FMB introduced in the Sequel to make much better missions and Campaigns for the Channel Map.

Not to mention computer improvements and sim optimizations that will allow far more aircraft in the air with decent frame rates. That said my current system allows enough aircraft in the air to simulate most possible BOB missions. The current missions and campaigns built by the developer had to be dumbed down for use on average computers, not to mention the poor state of the game engine when these missions were built a few years ago.

The ghost trees do suck big time, hopefully the devs will eventually be able to further mod the Speedtrees to accept a damage model with decent frame rates on their huge map. Or get rid of Speedtrees all together.

[ATAG_Doc]

Hehehe before it use to be ghost planes. Now its ghost trees. Hehe

[NLS61]

well about the trees it would be possible to put poles scatterd best at random at an interval that does not affect frame rates to much so to discourage flying through them.
the effect being somwhat of a minefield and not historical correct but neverthe less hiding in the trees would become highly dangerous.
for now maybe a solution.

[ATAG_Doc]

Wait a second...I think if you look off shore from Dunkirk about 25 miles I found the SS minnow floating around.

[NLS61]

Wait a second...I think if you look off shore from Dunkirk about 25 miles I found the SS minnow floating around.

The S. S. Minnow is a fictional charter boat
what I dont get, but Im Dutch so should be forgiven, how it relates to the post(s) above.

[ATAG_Doc]

Its in the game. I've seen it. Trust me. Its there.

[SlipBall]

Its in the game. I've seen it. Trust me. Its there.


I'm always looking for something out of the ordinary to show up. Do you remember the discussion with luthier about having a few surprises. I would not be surprised if they are tied to hours flown, or something like that.

[planespotter]

Its in the game. I've seen it. Trust me. Its there.

You evil man now there is someone searching the sea off dunkirk for the ss minnow...

[Catseye]

Its in the game. I've seen it. Trust me. Its there.

I hope Mary-Ann and Ginger are still onboard.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Wait a second...I think if you look off shore from Dunkirk about 25 miles I found the SS minnow floating around.
I would not be too suprised!!

In that this would not be the first flight sim to simulate the SS minnow!

microprose pacific air war 1942 (PAW) had an 'extra' island out in the pacific map.. And if you flew close to it.. You would start reciving radio message (text) from the 'folks' living on that island! Get closer and you could see the ship and people sitting on the beach

It was a great sim.. One of if not the first PC game to impliment a true 6DOF flight model.. Though it was fixxed point math and not floating point.. It was still far better than the other sims at that time (AOTP, AOE, RB, CYAR, SWOTL, etc).. It was also the sim that lead the way to microprose european air war (EAW)

[planespotter]

Ahhhh EAW, my first true love. would you believe i left her for CFS3 (yes, I am ashamed but I did love that mosqito) but she took me back. I had another affair with B17 the mighty 8th but EAW still had my heart. then IL2 came along (aces expansion, not the first one) and I left EAW forever. I still see her around, she's holding her age pretty well, but it's not the same anymore.

http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/eaw01.jpghttp://www.oocities.org/willhunter42/MossieFB6RXXUpdate2.jpghttp://knoji.com/images/user/123%28648%29.jpg

[ICU_DIE535]

Anyone remember the Easter eggs in Fleet Defender? The F-14 simulation from Microprose. If you fly to far to one side of the map there was a flying Dragon. There was also a mission where they scrambled you to VID a bogey that turned out to be a flying disk UFO.

[klem]

Anyone remember the Easter eggs in Fleet Defender? The F-14 simulation from Microprose. If you fly to far to one side of the map there was a flying Dragon. There was also a mission where they scrambled you to VID a bogey that turned out to be a flying disk UFO.

There goes the thread :(

[priller26]

EAW was awesome, and ran like a champ

[broken pixel]

Sorry to change the subject on EAW but could one of the developers please give some feedback on the Windows 8 issue with IL2 COD not being able to start? Can we hope for a fix?

[Volksieg]

Obviously, I am not one of the Devs but I can tell you straight that no Windows 8 fix is coming from them. They don't go on this forum anymore and have finished all work on CloD. You never know, mind.... some modder may figure something out at some point in the future. :)

[Chivas]

Sorry to change the subject on EAW but could one of the developers please give some feedback on the Windows 8 issue with IL2 COD not being able to start? Can we hope for a fix?

I have no idea if they will make COD work with Windows 8. If its an easy fix I don't see why they wouldn't send a patch to Steam, although it wouldn't be a major issue for the developers because the sim wasn't designed with Windows 8 in mind. That said I don't doubt that Windows 8 will be a spec, considering the number of people who will buy Windows 8 systems, by the time a Sequel is released. The Channel Map will be included with the Sequel if there is a Sequel. I'm not sold on Windows 8 yet.