Managing after a failure

[buddye]

I have some two very bitter and disappointing experiences with software system failure. When I worked on FAA's Reroute Air traffic Control System, the FAA told us to take our system out of the Chicago Air Traffic Control center and to start over planning and writing requirements.

Also when BOBII was released in 2005, BOBII was considered a failure at least by me and many other players.

I now consider both the FAA and BOBII a success because new management software procedures and stronger testing (unit , subsystem, and system), and smaller incremental development.

To correct a system failure, requires a new management approach who will focus on a strong software development process, enforced priorities, and a stronger testing approach. The development plan must also take smaller incremental steps that can be tested, released for testing to a strong volunteer beta test group.

Without a change in management approach and focus there is a good chance that history will repeat itself on the new BOM System.

I do wish 1C the very best of luck on both the quality and profit of BOM.

[Chivas]

I agree with some of your assessment, but Maddox Games did just fine developing the original series, with a working game engine. The problem with this development is the unfinished game engine which they are trying to fix and finish which exacerbates every other problem with the sims content and features. If the development could have waited until the game engine was working before release we would never have seen such a clusterfk. There would still have been problems, but certainly not to the extent we have witnessed. Hopefully most of the glaring issues will be addressed by the Sequels release and they can continue developing theaters without it being a Keystones Cops Fire Drill.

P.S. for those that suggest that it isn't the same development team, you would be mostly wrong, as much of the same development team is still intact.

[Mysticpuma]

I have some two very bitter and disappointing experiences with software system failure. When I worked on FAA's Reroute Air traffic Control System, the FAA told us to take our system out of the Chicago Air Traffic Control center and to start over planning and writing requirements.

Also when BOBII was released in 2005, BOBII was considered a failure at least by me and many other players.

I now consider both the FAA and BOBII a success because new management software procedures and stronger testing (unit , subsystem, and system), and smaller incremental development.

To correct a system failure, requires a new management approach who will focus on a strong software development process, enforced priorities, and a stronger testing approach. The development plan must also take smaller incremental steps that can be tested, released for testing to a strong volunteer beta test group.

Without a change in management approach and focus there is a good chance that history will repeat itself on the new BOM System.

I do wish 1C the very best of luck on both the quality and profit of BOM.

Let's hope we see some momentum with BoB...there needs to be something done to make us 'believe' that the future looks bright!

Good to see you Buddeye...ever thought about BoBIII ? Just license the WoP engine from Gaijin and honestly your AI will do the rest ;)

[JG52Krupi]

Why the WoP engine? Its a load of rubbish, just visuals and bugger all else...

[SiThSpAwN]

Why the WoP engine? Its a load of rubbish, just visuals and bugger all else...

It would be silly now for them to dump this game engine with all the time invested in it now, and compared to other sims out there right now you would be hard pressed to find one that is as complete and detailed, just looking at little details that people like to over look. We will see what Eagle Dynamics pulls out with their new Game Engine, but right now, a completed and refined IL2:CoD Game Engine can be a wonderful thing...

[JG52Krupi]

It would be silly now for them to dump this game engine with all the time invested in it now, and compared to other sims out there right now you would be hard pressed to find one that is as complete and detailed, just looking at little details that people like to over look. We will see what Eagle Dynamics pulls out with their new Game Engine, but right now, a completed and refined IL2:CoD Game Engine can be a wonderful thing...

I agree, pity that some here are too busy looking at the shiny things than looking at the amazing level of detail that has been put into the models.

Hopefully we will not be losing these features in the next game.

[MadBlaster]

Someone else ask the question. I just can't do it.;)

[Mysticpuma]

I wasn't talking about CloD I was saying it about BoBII: WoV which Buddeye worked on. So have all the beauty of the WoP engine BUT all the quality of their missions and AI.

Not CloD ;)

[Ribbs67]

The difference is the size and scale of the channel map in both wings of victory and CLOD. The WOP engine just cant produce maps that size, and still be able to do the things it does. Go play on a CLOD
server that dosent have CEM running... the gameplay is extremely smooth with alot of players swarming around...but what fun is that.. basically left with old IL2 so to speak. I like the WOP graphics
also.. but something has to give. WOP has no where near the level of CEM or DM that CLOD has. In a perfect world we would have CLOD FM/DM with WOP Weather and atmospere and BOB WOV campaign and AI. Unfortunately the Holy Grail of WWII flight sims still illudes us.

[flyingblind]

I'm not sure you can class CloD as a failure. It got off to a pretty shakey start
for reasons no one here really knows. But the developers have steadily made great
improvements including a complete rewrite of much of the core code. True it has
been time consuming and some elements have been removed or cut back for the sake of
playerbility but the latest update has really moved things on. Who knows what will
be reinstated in future and exciting things have been promised.

The only thing I can think will make it fail is having enough buyers of the sequel
to recoupe developement costs. They need a good few thousand rather geeky anoraks
with an obsession with all stuff WW2, with deep pockets for the heavy hardware, too
much time on their hands and a chidlike desire to be Biggles. Oh and if married, a
tolerant wife and a thick skin to weather the ridicule of their kids.

I agree the size of the map is probably a large part of the problem. I sometimes
wonder if all the goodies we were expecting were developed on a much smaller test
map and when the big channel map and the game engine met things went a bit pear
shaped but as too much had been invested in map and engine and development time
had run out then some serious compromises and back peddling had to be done until
the developers could find out how much could be salvaged. But so far so good.

[He111]

I always thought the problem with CLOD was that Oleg and team were bought by Putins Silicon valley dream, leaving 1C to pick up the pieces ?

Or have I got that totally wrong? wouldn't be the first time I showed off my mushroom style..

.

[buddye]

If the 1C management and development team does not acknowledge that COD was a failure (did not meet states objectives) with a loss of management controls (could not establish or meet schedules or be easily fixed resulting re-coding that also did not meet objectives), then I believe some of the same problems will occur on BOM.

The first step is to always admit the problem. The next step is to complete an analysis resulting in a plan with the processes, inspections, and testing to control and correct the development process.

[MadBlaster]

The first step is to always admit the problem.


Luthier admitted CLoD was a failure already. See here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=465553&postcount=22 (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=465553&
postcount=22)


The next step is to complete an analysis resulting in a plan with the processes, inspections, and testing to control and correct the development process[/B].

Hopefully the 1C management team did this evaluation back in May when they started BOM development! We do know this. Luthier is still in charge. He said he learned from it, per above link. I also asked him specifically and his answer:

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

Yes, just differently.

[Fearless_1]

Point taken, but management should be completely changed. It's obvious flight sims won't bring in big bucks, so why not just let someone who wants to make flight sims manage the project instead?

[MadBlaster]

Ah, the question has been asked. ;)

[SlipBall]

The team did a great job on this sim! the community really gave them a hard time with the release. We should have let them do the net code, and AI commands first as the priority. Then the other things would have followed too eventually. CTD was mostly user fault, like things running in the back ground etc. the game got hacked up unnecessarily.IMO

[hiro]

Well Oleg not being here had something to do with what we have today. But good thing they have most of the original team though.

I think if Oleg was still here, the game might have been delayed considerably but working . . . the game would have had issues, but it would be been playable for high end systems . . .

something like the original Il-2 release but rockier (because stuffs like hardware, software etc more complicated today).

Oleg's importance was crucial. But that's not to say what the current dev crew is can't do and out do what Oleg set to do with this sequel. I think they can.


-----





But given the current record, the devs are well on their way to making the sequel awesome.

they already met most of the OP's objectives except management replacement . . . the devs know what's borked, and how to fix it, they are working on fixing it.

--------

ALthought alot of peeps here would love the Jason n ROF crew taking over this sim, its not happening.

Or the WOP thing. It'd be nice, but the game engine is based off the Il-2 1946, and old.

Let's look at the venerable quake 3 engine
I've seen lots of kick ass games using the quake 3 engine long after q3's release, but first person shooters had to move on after several years. Lots of developers were able to push that engine so it looked and felt like the next generation FPS engines but eventually its obsolescence caught up with it.

There was limit to what it could do, and there was lot of new things (and new hardware) both the gaming industry and its fans were realizing . . . and it got alot harder to include the new features with an old engine, and alot easier to code up a new one with the new stuff and leave room for future improvements based on the knowledge of several generations of game engine development.


-----

The new IL-2 needed a new engine and it would be shame just to redress the 1946 engine and iterations based off that older engine. We have to commend Oleg and now Luthier and his team for working to give a new engine.

However since it was broken, lots wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but what we got here is proven it can work, if improvements and work keep at it. We have a broke engine but its repairable and that's what counts.

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


I think if the current management is willing to change what didn't work with what is going to / did work, that's almost as getting replaced by more competent management crew.



-----------

yeah and letting someone do it for the love . . . that would be awesome . . . yet with the devs and their publisher there were more dimensions . . . that well, lead to what we have here.

it'd be better for that person who wants to do it for love to get key people around him (key meaning that can make a company and grow it and have mad skills) and run with it. The dev and publishing co's have to be on the same boat or in the next case . . . crew in the same boat . . .

oh and there's the financials . . .

I was just interviewed by an HR lady a few weeks back . . . who knew the guy that started a legendary first person shooter series. It was an impromptu lunch interview and he happened to notice her and he strolled over to say hi.

He had to max out his credit cards, take out a bunch of loans, and get tons of small business / DIY venture capital loans. He talked to friends and trusted friends of friends, to assemble a team that could mesh well and have skill set to win. He said he knew he was going for financial ruin, but he felt the FPS genre needed something apart from d00m, duke nuke-em and jedi.

IIRC he later sold the gaming rights of the series he started, and it involved normandy, black ops and zombies . . . but he did make an awesome series.

[FS~Phat]

Why the WoP engine? Its a load of rubbish, just visuals and bugger all else...

Dont be so quick to dismiss it. Im also a War Thunder beta tester and I can tell you that while it doesnt have the fidelity of IL2 / CLOD DM and FM it is a lot better than WoP was and the game play is very enjoyable even for a beta.

Its about the overall gameplay experience at the end of it all... and Oleg spent too much time trying to simulate individual rivets and the like instead of balancing visual/FM/DM aspects with gameplay. War Thunder is a pretty complete package as far as gameplay goes and thats while its still at Beta. So it will only get better as they refine the damage and flight models and add more content.

The unfortunate thing with Clod was that the game engine in its various guises didnt deliver so they have been chasing their tail since 2009. From a DM and FM perspective Im sure it is still more detailed than War Thunder will ever be, but at the expense of visuals, gameplay, stability and performance. Luthier needs to readdress the balance of gameplay/visuals/performance vs FM/DM for the sequel. He knows this and has commented as such to my question about balancing gameplay/visuals with realism.

Its a game after all and not a static model where we count each individual rivet and wing spar. We want to experience a bigger world and re-live the 1940's from a pilots perspective with nice graphics and compelling game play.

If I had to sacrifice some elements in order to get a better overall experience here's how id rate importance and my evaluation of CLODs attainment out of 5. (peoples opinions will vary but im sure you'll see what im getting at)

#1 Immersion - 2 (what immersion?)
#2 Flight Model -3.5 (good but not up to 1946 standards overall)
#3 Gameplay - 2.5 (very average)
#4 Graphical representation of aircraft models - 5 (miles ahead of 1946 and anything else)
#5 Graphical representation of game world (water, land, trees, buildings, objects) - 3 (dont see it as any better than 1946 and this was one of the biggest failings of the graphics engine)
#6 Damage Model - was 5 but has gone backwards to 3.5 in the latest patches at least visually anyway
Equal #6 AI - 3 from a flying perspective and a 1 from a AI commands perspective. (im an online player mostly and if I was more into offline this would be ranked #3)

So as you can see there is a lot to balance and thats just from my own personal perspective. Oleg focussed too much on the plane models and their graphical rendering and damage model virtually at the expense of everything else. Nice models with individual rivets and spars that can be damaged dont alone create an immersive WW2 simulation.