Time now to let TD loose on CloD for bug fixing only! Not for new content? 1c listen?

[Mysticpuma]

Right, we all know many of the bugs reported in the official (and unread) bug tracker have been left unfixed and now the final 1c patch has been released we are left in a position of limbo.
There are many fixes still to implemented and for some players these are crucial to allow them to at least enjoy their purchase and get it into a playable condition.

So may I humbly suggest that 1c allow TD the chance make CloD work as it actually should by letting them read the bugtracker and fix the most 'popular' bugs still present.

Now I appreciate that there would be concerns about new features and similar being added but that is not what I am suggesting.

As much as I would love new shipping, working weather, etc,etc this is not what I am suggesting.

Since 1c are now finished with clod, the features would stay the same BUT it must surely be possible to let TD fix the bugs that exist in the current software as they do appear to at least listen to the community and also care about the playability of the Sim?

I would only request that they be allowed to bug fix as I wouldn't like to think that they would be taken away for too long from their amazing work on 1946, but please at least consider that now CloD is Abandoned for development, it would be seen as a sign of future community relations to at least consider letting TD make the sim a final working package.

Appreciate thoughts on this from the community, TD and 1c.

Please give us hope of having the bugs that 1c have given up on spending time fixing could at least be fixed by your brilliant and talented TD guys.

Cheers, MP

[SlipBall]

I think there are certain files that are best keep closed:)

[Toni74]

the most annoying thing about the bugtracker is the fact that there wasn't even one single statement about the reported bugs given. really, I don't know why doing all those researching and trying to make things better when we even don't get feedback.

i suspect they simply dont want to change "their" product.

[Novotny]

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/1/11/Beating-a-dead-horse.gif

[salmo]

the most annoying thing about the bugtracker is the fact that there wasn't even one single statement about the reported bugs given. really, I don't know why doing all those researching and trying to make things better when we even don't get feedback.

i suspect they simply dont want to change "their" product.

Luthier himself changed the status of several issues in the bug-tracker to "in progress", none of which actualy made it into the final release. :confused:

[salmo]

I would be rushing to get TD alone to monopolise potential future development. There are many talented individuals in the community that could improve COD given the chance.

[Das Attorney]

So what happens to all these bug fixes when 1C release BOM and Cliffs gets merged into the BOM code?

The way I see it, either:


Their fixes would be wiped out by the new BOM code

Their fixes would be incorporated in the BOM code, meaning in effect that they're working on the sequel for free.


Would they want that? I don't know. What would happen to their hard work on Il-2 1946? As it is, they devoting all their spare time to working just on 1946

Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't seem like they would get much out of it.

EDIT: These are my opinions/questions and I want it to be known that I'm not trying to speak for them.

[pstyle]

So what happens to all these bug fixes when 1C release BOM and Cliffs gets merged into the BOM code?
The way I see it, either:

Their fixes would be wiped out by the new BOM code
Their fixes would be incorporated in the BOM code, meaning in effect that they're working on the sequel for free.



Last official word from luthier was that the two would not be merged. Sequel to be stand alone. I can't find the link right now, be see answers to questions thread from a couple of weeks back.

[Ailantd]

Last official word from luthier was that the two would not be merged. Sequel to be stand alone. I can't find the link right now, be see answers to questions thread from a couple of weeks back.

You are wrong.
Sequel stand alone means that you will can buy only BoM and play only BoM. But if you already have CoD they will be merged. In other words: BoM will be not a DLC, but a stand alone expansion.

[zapatista]

no hope in hell, and good thing to

you really think they are going to give away their source code to let a few amateurs tinker with it and waste the millions it took to get where we got to now

rather odd idea

[pstyle]

You are wrong.
Sequel stand alone means that you will can buy only BoM and play only BoM. But if you already have CoD they will be merged. In other words: BoM will be not a DLC, but a stand alone expansion.

You say it won't be stand alone, but then you say it will be stand alone... I'm confused.

[Gamekeeper]

In that path lies madness

[pstyle]

Direct quote from luthier;

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

[zander]

You are wrong.
Sequel stand alone means that you will can buy only BoM and play only BoM. But if you already have CoD they will be merged. In other words: BoM will be not a DLC, but a stand alone expansion.

The way I understood it was:
BoM already contains Clod planes and maps off the shelf.

He said something about time capsule, ability to fly spits and e3 in BoM.

[GraveyardJimmy]

Direct quote from luthier;

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

He also said they would be able to be merged. What he is getting at here is that they will not release features for free for CloD- you will need to buy the sequel to get them together- or at least that's how I understood it when taken with his other posts saying they would merge.

[FG28_Kodiak]

Its like Forgotten Battles and Pacifik Fighters, both can played stand alone, but can merged also. :rolleyes:

[Widow17]

i think so too, both can but dont have to be merged

as far as i understand future bugfixes for COD will only come with BOM, if you stick to CLOD only, nothing will change but with BOM all fixes and changes will apply to COD too.


And thats the best way to ensure even the frustrated COD players will buy BOM because all want a better COD ;)

[slm]

I thought TD was allowed to continue improving IL2 for free because the game series had been abandoned by the official development team. But CoD is supposed to be the *first* game of the new commercial series, so how would TD fit this?

[mazex]

Right, we all know many of the bugs reported in the official (and unread) bug tracker have been left unfixed and now the final 1c patch has been released we are left in a position of limbo.
There are many fixes still to implemented and for some players these are crucial to allow them to at least enjoy their purchase and get it into a playable condition.

So may I humbly suggest that 1c allow TD the chance make CloD work as it actually should by letting them read the bugtracker and fix the most 'popular' bugs still present.

Now I appreciate that there would be concerns about new features and similar being added but that is not what I am suggesting.

As much as I would love new shipping, working weather, etc,etc this is not what I am suggesting.

Since 1c are now finished with clod, the features would stay the same BUT it must surely be possible to let TD fix the bugs that exist in the current software as they do appear to at least listen to the community and also care about the playability of the Sim?

I would only request that they be allowed to bug fix as I wouldn't like to think that they would be taken away for too long from their amazing work on 1946, but please at least consider that now CloD is Abandoned for development, it would be seen as a sign of future community relations to at least consider letting TD make the sim a final working package.

Appreciate thoughts on this from the community, TD and 1c.

Please give us hope of having the bugs that 1c have given up on spending time fixing could at least be fixed by your brilliant and talented TD guys.

Cheers, MP

Well - the reason TD "got" the code for 1946 was that that MG was done with it, they where not going to use that code any more. IF TD would get the current code for CloD we would never get any merged install (without losing the efforts of one team). After this latest patch we will get no more patches for CloD, but the same code base will continue to evolve when they work on the sequel - and when we "merge" the sequel with CloD we actually only get to use the old maps and aircraft with the latest iteration of the CloD core engine, with new features and GUI stuff etc...

So unless TD and MG would merge their branches of the core modules before the release of the sequel that would mean the end of a continuously evolving core game like we had in IL2-->1946. The basic core engine was the "same" all those years, they just kept upgrading it and released new versions as sequels by adding maps and planes etc, including the old ones in the "package".

So - no way I would like a TD developed evolution of CloD at the expense of having a core game that lives and evolves over 10 years if successful...

The day the CloD codebase dies I'm all in to "give" it to TD to get an extended life. I hope that MG has version 3 in the oven at that time too! ;)

[planespotter]

no hope in hell, and good thing to

you really think they are going to give away their source code to let a few amateurs tinker with it and waste the millions it took to get where we got to now

rather odd idea

TD already said on SimHQ 'not snowball chance in hell'.

[Gabelschwanz Teufel]

TD already said on SimHQ 'not snowballs chance in hell'.

This^^^

[He111]

Modding is not giving away source code, just fixing bugs. The main assets of CLOD I see is Quality models with quality destruction details, is 1C concerned that these will be stolen? then don't release / unpack them, Most users just want access to fix bugs - cost 1C nothing, benefits all .

.

[zander]

Where would you suppose those bugs are hiding?

[TheGrunch]

...you need the source code to fix the bugs? The main asset of any game is the codebase. A model on its own is useless for anything other than looking at.

[zander]

source code ∉ code base?

[Red Dragon-DK]

I hope Never to see DT in this sim. They have there own agenda and try to push all others away.

[csThor]

I hope Never to see DT in this sim. They have there own agenda and try to push all others away.

Amusing to see all those little kinds of persecution complexes. Way better than any comedy on TV. Really. :rolleyes:

[Red Dragon-DK]

Amusing to see all those little kinds of persecution complexes. Way better than any comedy on TV. Really. :rolleyes:

Glad that I cut be helpful, for you to have an amusing moment.

Luther have already said, that more updates will come in the sequel. So there is no reson at all, to give DT access to fix bugs. A proposal that do not have its justified, in my believe.

If you gave DT access to CLOD as a stand alone Sim it would not merge with the sequel.


Cheers

[csThor]

I wasn't talking about TD involvement (which is not a realistic possibility, anyway - the engine will be used for further projects so 1C will not invite externals in), but about your comments on TD. This smacks too much of sour grapes IMO.

[jermin]

TD might be good at fixing bugs. But the FM/CEM changes they made into the recent IL-2 versions are just not convincing enough.

[BigC208]

TD to the bug fixing rescue? I think the TD guys enjoy bringing in new content and effects, not so much fix bugs. Also giving TD acces to the source code is much too risky. It's Luthier's Golden Goose. Next thing you know it get's leaked and content/theatres that they wanted to make and sell themselves will be available for free. Maybe in ten years when they've squeezed the last drop out of the source code will it become available. I've enjoyed TD's work on the original Il2 series and I hope they continue their work. Right now it's the only reason I still have 1946 on my drive.

[NervousEnergy]

You are wrong.
Sequel stand alone means that you will can buy only BoM and play only BoM. But if you already have CoD they will be merged. In other words: BoM will be not a DLC, but a stand alone expansion.

I'll have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure Luthier said at one point that CloD assets would be included in the sequel. There would be no need to 'merge' the games since that would be redundant.

Though that also begs the question of why they so flatly state there will be no more patches for CloD. If the sequel will be an improved version of the codebase with more content assets, then why wouldn't they release incremental improvements to the engine as they're built, if only to test them? CloD's development has made it clear that 1C doesn't have a lot of in-house testing resources, which is understandable for a small dev.

Not that I'm upset about that. The sim runs great for me. I still play 1946 more just because that's where all the guys I fly with are (Spits vs 109's HSFX server), but Cliffs seems to run pretty sweet now. Just curious why they'd cut off all patches if the new engine is supposed to still be able to run the CloD assets.

[He111]

How about PAID-BUG-FIXES ?? 1C needs funds, Users want bugs fixed - lets do a deal ! Users bid money for bug fix priority .. :grin: I know this sounds almost criminal ... but it's one option that might work, especially if modding won't be supported.

If I'm willing to pay A$1,000 for a flyable defiant, I don't see why paying a small amount to get bug-fixes moved up the priority ladder is any different. I'm a scenario builder, ATM I cannot do that because of CLOD bugs.

SDK sounds good but when and what will it allow ??? Will a few $100 help that along?

(and don't say - more money than cents! :( )

.

[mazex]

Well, as the source code for the core game will be off limits until MG takes down the sign or does a new core engine in 10 years, the best solution to this would be that they released the SDK that was actually "promised". Both for aircraft and maps. That way we could get flyable Defiants, Whirlwinds etc and all bases corrected with every last shithouse in the right place as it was in September 1940 :) And we could get a Spitfire IIa "community edition" to use at servers that allow that. Maybe MG could take the time to add the best community effort to the "official" base plane set too? At least the most needed ones...

It does not matter if the SDK is crappy and without documentation. I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts would wrestle it around rather fast anyway....

[He111]

SDK will need some doco as most simmers / pilots may not be programmers, plus I'll need some form of AI modding ability.

Plus, if we're allowed to mod aircraft then we'll need to know what modelling software 1C developers use.

.

[SlipBall]

Well, as the source code for the core game will be off limits until MG takes down the sign or does a new core engine in 10 years, the best solution to this would be that they released the SDK that was actually "promised". Both for aircraft and maps. That way we could get flyable Defiants, Whirlwinds etc and all bases corrected with every last shithouse in the right place as it was in September 1940 :) And we could get a Spitfire IIa "community edition" to use at servers that allow that. Maybe MG could take the time to add the best community effort to the "official" base plane set too? At least the most needed ones...

It does not matter if the SDK is crappy and without documentation. I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts would wrestle it around rather fast anyway....


Why would you want to divide the community:confused:

[klem]

I wouldn't want to see an independent third party given access to the CoD code. TD may have a good reputation in IL-2 '46 but that is only part of the story. The code is 'out there' and there are/were the Ultrapack mods, the HSFX mods and the AllAircraft guys mods before that. The online servers became a mess and the community fragmented.

We need one constant playing field.

Even if 1C were to use third party developers tied by their small tender parts to a nasty contract, the code would inevitably escape somehow.

Luthier's answers on BoM and merging with CoD did become a little confusing but my last understanding was that any improvements in the 'core' element would also be available to CoD play because they would all sit under the same game/file structure, like IL-2 did. As for unique CoD elements like the map and the BoB era aircraft, its not clear if those aircraft files (e.g. a BoM Hurricane) would be separate from CoD aircraft and, if so, if they would then also take the opportunity to overwrite the CoD files with ones containing the latest FMs etc.

[mazex]

Why would you want to divide the community:confused:

OK, you are correct that we risk a division by zero which is a big no no in programming ;) I'm not that fond of the divided old IL2 community either so maybe the best solution would be that new planes done with the SDK can only be used online after MG has approved them and added them to official plane set? That would of course imply that they have to release more patches and do some work testing them etc... I remember that they talked a lot about how much work it was in the old IL2 engine when they added community developed planes (before the "hacked" mod versions arrived).

[He111]

If a user was willing to buy the same modelling tool 1c deveoplers use, to change the Blenheim for example, to add a 4 x 303 mg pod under the aircraft and create a fighter, which he gives to the community to use , and it passes 1C standards, how does this divide the community ? yes, it's 1Cs software, they will need to put their final stamp on any user mods / changes.

If CLOD was a great seller and 1C had a huge team developing CLOD / BOM then we wouldn't need user/developers .. but unfortunately that's not the case. 1c has stated that they have washed their hands of future CLOD development, which some users think is a little hastie ... so why not allow users to add content .. for a fee (maybe?) .. or 1C hires extra developers for user-paid additions (although that could be too expensive)

I would like to see, and willing to pay for/work on, the following;

(1) Blenheim Fighter - start with something easy.
(2) Blenheim short-nose fighter - changed cockpit
(3) flyable defiant - new cockpit and gunner
(4) flyable Wellington - new cockpit, nav, radio, gunners
(5) flyable Beaufighter - new cockpit, nav

BTW, i'm not a skilled programmer, I know 'C' etc but that was along time ago. We users would need some skilled help .. :D


.

[FC99]

So may I humbly suggest that 1c allow TD the chance make CloD work as it actually should by letting them read the bugtracker and fix the most 'popular' bugs still present.

That's very unlikely, I don't think that anybody in DT have such interest. I can only speak for myself and I can tell you that I will not work on anything CloD and its sequel related without the pay. So if somebody put the money on the table than why not, there are far worse jobs out there but for free no way.

I would be rushing to get TD alone to monopolise potential future development. There are many talented individuals in the community that could improve COD given the chance.
Nobody stops them to contact Luthier and give him their proposition for future development of the CloD.


you really think they are going to give away their source code to let a few amateurs tinker with it and waste the millions it took to get where we got to now

rather odd idea
What's wrong with amateurs? Amateurs contributed a lot to mankind in many fields, especially programming. Kids from school are often doing amazing things.

And how would "amateurs" ruin the code with bugfixing, it is rather silly that you are afraid of 3rd party in game that was riddled with bugs from the get go. It would be more logical to be afraid of developers who released the game with so many bugs. Not that you have to be afraid of them but why you think that other developers would be worse?

BTW DT programmers have one form or another of formal education in programming so we qualify as amateurs only in terms of money reward for our work. OTOH our modelers have done payed work for Il2 and other flight sims so we are not amateurs in that area either.

I hope Never to see DT in this sim. They have there own agenda and try to push all others away.
Of course that we have an agenda, we are an organized group. As for pushing others away, really, are you serious, who are that others anyway?


Luther have already said, that more updates will come in the sequel. So there is no reson at all, to give DT access to fix bugs. A proposal that do not have its justified, in my believe.

If you gave DT access to CLOD as a stand alone Sim it would not merge with the sequel.
If we do it for free than it makes lot of sense to use us for bugfixing, they could benefit even if they pay us. I didn't see the CloD code but many of the reported bugs suggest that lot of the problems in CloD are transfered from Il2 to CloD, especially in FM and AI, our knowledge and experience could help them a lot to speed up the development in these areas.

In case of standalone sim that is not necessarily bad for 1C, game engines are sold or licensed under different terms on regular basis. I highly doubt that 1C would hesitate to sell game engine to anybody who offer them the right money. IMO their bigger problem is lack of potential buyers than anything else.

TD to the bug fixing rescue? I think the TD guys enjoy bringing in new content and effects, not so much fix bugs. Also giving TD acces to the source code is much too risky. It's Luthier's Golden Goose. Next thing you know it get's leaked and content/theatres that they wanted to make and sell themselves will be available for free.
Apart from adding new stuff to the Il2 we have fixed hundreds of bugs, but that don't gets as much public attention as new features and TBH we don't document every fix in readme.

Danger for code leaks is always present but you are right, more people involved bigger the danger.

I wouldn't want to see an independent third party given access to the CoD code. TD may have a good reputation in IL-2 '46 but that is only part of the story. The code is 'out there' and there are/were the Ultrapack mods, the HSFX mods and the AllAircraft guys mods before that. The online servers became a mess and the community fragmented.

Even if 1C were to use third party developers tied by their small tender parts to a nasty contract, the code would inevitably escape somehow.

Il2 code is out there because game was hacked, that can and probably will happen to CloD and it's sequels too but that doesn't have any similarity with licensing the game engine to other developers. It is interesting that you somehow think that code is safe in 1C hands and it will be compromised if it is sold to somebody else. Why, it is quite possible that other developers have better security system than Maddox games?

[BH_woodstock]

@FC99 and TD


Fix it, you know you want to.

do it.

:grin:

[jermin]

If you are really in need of money. I'd suggest you build you own game instead of soliciting from the players of a game not developed by yourselves.

I won't deny that TD does have some skilled modelers/programmers. But in no way your work can be compared to the masterpieces of some much more talented modders. What's more, they are much more humble and amiable than you.

The newly introduced overheat model and FM/CEM changes in patch 4.11 have caused quite some dispute where TD was unwilling (or unable) to provide any references to back up those changes.

Ever since the release of 4.11, the number of online players has been stepping down steadily. Hyperlobby is now a ghost town. I logged on today at 5 AM UCT and was supprised to find there was only some 20 (No, this is not a typo) players in the game.

I chose to support TD because I prefered a managed sim with consistent quality. And I hoped they would do something to stop the rampant online cheats. But considering what they have done online community and that the only remaining anti-cheat mechanism CRT can now be easily bypassed, I think it is pointless to support them any more. Futhermore, modders provide real-life references for nearly every change they made to the game and are willing to listen to players' advice and complaints.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Originally Posted by jermin:
________________________
Why do some people tend to take it for granted that others have poorer knowledge background than them regarding what they are arguing about
while they actually don't have a clue about who they are arguing with in the first place?

So just don't argue.

[Stublerone]

Pls no TD support. As already said they have their own agenda and their own part of the com. The whole thing perhaps helped il2 to survive a little longer but the com was split in half since then. Even if you stick with the new things of td, some things went wrong recently. They haven't heard on some advices and even thrown out some important supporters with their programs. It messed up a bot and some are really unhappy about the last developments. Some are and some are not. It is not my way to evaluate anf I do not do it. I am just saying, that some recent developments and also the initial developments split the com.

Please never again! ;) btw, the source code wasn't given to them. It was hacked and available for everyone.

[Robo.]

if you are really in need of money. I'd suggest you build you own game instead of soliciting from the players of a game not developed by yourselves.

I won't deny that td does have some skilled modelers/programmers. But in no way your work can be compared to the masterpieces of some much more talented modders. What's more, they are much more humble and amiable than you.

The newly introduced overheat model and fm/cem changes in patch 4.11 have caused quite some dispute where td was unwilling (or unable) to provide any references to back up those changes.

Ever since the release of 4.11, the number of online players has been stepping down steadily. Hyperlobby is now a ghost town. I logged on today at 5 am uct and was supprised to find there was only some 20 (no, this is not a typo) players in the game.

I chose to support td because i prefered a managed sim with consistent quality. And i hoped they would do something to stop the rampant online cheats. But considering what they have done online community and that the only remaining anti-cheat mechanism crt can now be easily bypassed, i think it is pointless to support them any more. Futhermore, modders provide real-life references for nearly every change they made to the game and are willing to listen to players' advice and complaints.

lol.

[FS~Phat]

Please dont post anything to do with cracked SFS files on these forums. Next time you will be gone for good.
LAST WARNING!

[klem]

.......................

Il2 code is out there because game was hacked, that can and probably will happen to CloD and it's sequels too but that doesn't have any similarity with licensing the game engine to other developers. It is interesting that you somehow think that code is safe in 1C hands and it will be compromised if it is sold to somebody else. Why, it is quite possible that other developers have better security system than Maddox games?

I didn't realise '46 had been licensed to TD. I thought they were simply a particular group of modders that 1C had given their blessing to.

I expect one day someone will break into CoD/BoM/SoW but hopefully the community will realise the chaos it would cause following that road. Also I hope anti-cheat mechanisms will be strong enough for those that prefer to stay with the official 1C programme.

Of course if 1C fail to deliver on quality and content even the most hopeful of us will drift away.

FS~Phat please see this as a discussion on development opportunities for CoD etc, not hacking.

[LoBiSoMeM]

I have more fun now flying in ATAG server than in ten years in IL-2, modded or not.

Please, don't even try to compare these two softwares: IL-2 1946 engine is so much outdated now...

It's not fair to compare. And the complexity of content made by modders for IL-2 1946 can't compare either to ONE flyable aircraft in CloD.

It's very clear, but some here are just blind to see...

A shame!

[He111]

I didn't realise '46 had been licensed to TD. I thought they were simply a particular group of modders that 1C had given their blessing to.

I expect one day someone will break into CoD/BoM/SoW but hopefully the community will realise the chaos it would cause following that road. Also I hope anti-cheat mechanisms will be strong enough for those that prefer to stay with the official 1C programme.

Of course if 1C fail to deliver on quality and content even the most hopeful of us will drift away.

FS~Phat please see this as a discussion on development opportunities for CoD etc, not hacking.

OH!! that TD!! ..

If TD have 1C's blessing to do some fixes / mods / new aircraft etc, I'm all for that! And willing to contribute to get my own way! :grin:

.

[hiro]

Yeah its different with 1946, it was at the twilight of its run . . . and TD got the license. I liked what TD did though, lots of awesome. Some issues, but they did good.

This new series, it won't be until at least five years after the sequel . . . heck the devs themselves are trying to figure out the code.

Need to the code stable at least. For modding purposes.

--


For fixing bugs, I'm sure TD and other amateurs have the skill, but the guys who made the code, have the best familiarity with it and stand to be the best ones to fix it.

And the devs have proven their worth in working to fix things, they have taken things far with this game.

There lots of logistical and tracking issues, if you have the devs and 2 or more community teams working to fix stuff . . . They would need some coordination and project management . . .

it would be just easier to bring them on board temporarily to ease the communication but that's not going to happen.


--

someone's still mad at TD for the fuses thing :-P . . . LOL

[He111]

If 1C have given up on the BOB scenario / aircraft, concentrating on BOM and others, surely allowing DT to do some BOB aircraft additions (Blenheim gun pod), cockpits (defiant, whimpy etc) and new BOB aircraft (???) etc would be acceptable ? yes? no ? especially if it draws in additional funding.

PLEASE .. :grin:

.

[ElAurens]

With TD totally committed to IL2/'46 I doubt they have the manpower to work on the new series, and I also doubt they have the desire to do so.

[AirHog71]

I'm pretty sure Illya said that all content from CoD will be in BoM, so I would take from that, that those planes will also be updated over time as was the case with 1946.