Regarding the 'Voldemort' threads that get deleted

[Mysticpuma]

In those threads that "that question shall not be named!" I'd guess the safest way to talk about it (and having read the rules) without causing an infraction of the rules, due to discussion of an on-topic' subject, would probably be to go to the Extended Discussion threads at Sim HQ?

Best not mention a "Voldemort" question here again!

Cheers, MP

[Continu0]

Links to these threads pls...?

[Slipstream2012]

Who cares about the rules?, rules are for conformists.

When a thread that doesn't break any rule can be locked, all hell is breaking loose in the forums and certain mods are adding to it by acting in weird ways.

Why do they find it so hard to fathom that people couldn't care less?

Banning is useless, most people here can get in here again without much effort, not that they'd even want to, I find ATAG, SimHQ etc.. much more informative, helpful and friendly & minus the iron curtain.

[CaptainDoggles]

Links to these threads pls...?

Can't link to a thread that's been deleted.

There are rumours spreading like wildfire. Most of them are probably false, but all seem to mention one or more of the following:


Luthier fired/resigning and working on a Korean War project with another company
Maddox Games staff being fired/made redundant
Sequel cancelled
Merger/partnership between 1c and 777 studios
MG staff moving to 777 studios
777 studios making a WW2 sim
etc
etc
etc


:rolleyes:

They're just rumours. Ignore them until we get an official answer. That is why some of us are asking for an official answer.

[Mysticpuma]

Sadly Doggles (as you know), most threads asking for official answers.....vanish!

and then those that haven't seen them come along, ask the same question...and that thread vanishes!

What you say though and what all the previous threads have asked for, would be a simple way of stopping the threads/questions, but for some reason (maybe that famous lack of communication!) they can't get it through their thick heads that a statement (let's call it a Friday Update, as they were regular!) could nip all this in the bud.

Come on 1C/Maddox (Voldemort!!!), let's have a Friday Update!

[Mysticpuma]

Links to these threads pls...?

Relevant threads:

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/forums/267/1/IL_2_Cliffs_of_Dover_Extended_.html

[SlipBall]

I'm not seeing any panic over at sukhoi.ru, in fact I did not see a single post on the subject.

[planespotter]

In those threads that "that question shall not be named!" I'd guess the safest way to talk about it (and having read the rules) without causing an infraction of the rules, due to discussion of an on-topic' subject, would probably be to go to the Extended Discussion threads at Sim HQ?

Best not mention a "Voldemort" question here again!

Cheers, MP

Ooooh. You gonna get dis-apparated...

[Kongo-Otto]

Ooooh. You gonna get dis-apparated...

http://i942.photobucket.com/albums/ad263/strawberryturtle/GIF%20Album/tumblr_lj95ms6oEE1qf3if8.gif

[Feathered_IV]

Several posts got deleted over the last hour or so. They were not commercially sensitive ones as such, so it looks like the recent purges are being done by local community member-mods rather than official 1c watchdogs. There is some reassurance in that.

[Bobb4]

Even if all the rumours are true and we are looking at a worst case scenario here, total canning of project (speculation on my part), protecting the brand itself would be an obvious thing to do. Which is what is happening now.
A defunct product can always be repackaged at a later date or sold to another developer with deep pockets.
Business 101 is to protect the brand, ie Maddox Games, Il2 Sturmovik - XXXX etc.
With the flood of MMO's being launched they would have crunched the numbers I guess and made a call on that.

[Feathered_IV]

Even if all the rumours are true and we are looking at a worst case scenario here, total canning of project (speculation on my part), protecting the brand itself would be an obvious thing to do. Which is what is happening now.

That makes a lot of sense. If you were negotiating the sale of the franchise, you would want to keep a tight lid on any bad press sitting on your doorstep which would knock a few kopeks off the asking price.

[swiss]

And how many potential buyers are out there?

[Lurker_71]

Business 101 is [...]

That made me laugh :grin:

Looking back how MG handled CloD and their customer base (one remembers the banjo clip :rolleyes: and the style by which Luthier responded to community questions recently), I think fundamentals of business may not be carrying much if any weight with these folks.

I come to think the success of original IL2 series was a one time thing. Personally, I would be very surprised to see this team come up with a successful project in the future (a conclusion apparently shared by their bosses). And frankly, I would be reluctant to purchase any software that lists Mr. Luthier in the credits.

[Winger]

If it was true it would be the best that could happen to us (WWII sim fans). I keep my fingers crossed.

[JG52Krupi]

If what was true?

[Winger]

If what was true?


1c owned by 777 or sold right to 777 or whatever. All this rumors. 1C employees fired and stuff.
At least we would get a good sim if 777 made it.

[swiss]

1c owned by 777 or sold right to 777 or whatever. All this rumors. 1C employees fired and stuff.
At least we would get a good sim if 777 made it.

1. 1C is a friggin' huge software company
2. MG is not
3. I'm not going to buy single planes

[JG52Krupi]

1c owned by 777 or sold right to 777 or whatever. All this rumors. 1C employees fired and stuff.
At least we would get a good sim if 777 made it.

Whats so good about us taking a step back?

Look at the systems in COD and the lack thereof (currently) in ROF, for all we know it could be another 7 years before we see a ww2 sim and if what I have heard about ROF servers are true then we can't get a thenth of the objects on the map that COD can do (this I was told by a former ROF server owner).

Sure the COD engine wasn't perfect but neither is the ROF engine they both have pros and cons.

Also if 777 do create a ww2 sim whose to say it will have the same level of CEM, hopefully it would have more than COD. COD ruined 1946 for me i cant go back to those graphics after seeing what ROF and COD look like regarding visuals and the same goes for the CEM.... :(

[JG52Krupi]

Jason has stated before that there has been a lot of misinformation spread about both the ROF and cod engine I would be more than happy for him to prove my concerns misplaced/incorrect.

[150GCT_Veltro]

Why they don't buy Outerra?

[Von Crapenhauser]

:-PWhats so good about us taking a step back?

Look at the systems in COD and the lack thereof (currently) in ROF, for all we know it could be another 7 years before we see a ww2 sim and if what I have heard about ROF servers are true then we can't get a thenth of the objects on the map that COD can do (this I was told by a former ROF server owner).

Sure the COD engine wasn't perfect but neither is the ROF engine they both have pros and cons.

Also if 777 do create a ww2 sim whose to say it will have the same level of CEM, hopefully it would have more than COD. COD ruined 1946 for me i cant go back to those graphics after seeing what ROF and COD look like regarding visuals and the same goes for the CEM.... :(

Perhaps a merge of ROF and CLOD would be a good thing?
After all Isnt ROF based on the old 1946 game engine??
I could be wrong but if so thats a good thing..yes?:-)

[Slipstream2012]

If it was true it would be the best that could happen to us (WWII sim fans). I keep my fingers crossed.

The above comment as been flagged as garbage.

Disclaimer: However everyone is entitled to their opinions.

I think Krupi has outlined the main reasons above, however without starting another CoD vs RoF battle, so many of you claim to be 10+ year IL2 Sturmovik supporters so you should all realize that during that period apart from a few small bugs and hiccups (which are totally normal in the course of software development), you ultimately had a stable piece of software which free content was added to regularly in the form of patch's and expansions to other new theaters were released every year or two.

May I also remind you that during the development of Cliffs of Dover, there were so many technological advances as far as computer hardware goes. In 2005 many people were still on single core machines, with GPU's that had small amounts of on-board RAM and features like shader technology was quite new. By 2011 almost everyone was running dual or quad-cores, GPU's with 1GB+ on-board RAM and a bucket load of new features.
Maddox Games had to keep on-top of all this and face pressure to release the product, which inevitably led to an forced early release and the rest is history.

But when it comes to the crunch, who would you really want to develop your realistic WWII flight sim?

A) Maddox Games: The group with 10+ years experience, that provided you with the award winning IL2 Sturmovik, a catalog of free and payware content, and despite the problems with CLOD have shown what they are capable of with features such as CEM, amazingly detailed cockpits & an incredible scripting engine.

B) 777: The group with 3+ experience, provided you with a very nice WWI flightsim, free to play, but everything else is payware. some great community incentives such as "gifting", but has a much smaller engine, no clickable cockpits, and would probably take 7 more years to advance to the stage that CLOD is at.

Personally as much as I like RoF, its great at what it does and CoD is great at what it does, but for a WWII flight simulation, my answer is a straight A.

[Feathered_IV]

After all Isnt ROF based on the old 1946 game engine??

It is not. In the very early days the original developers looked at the idea, but discarded it. SimHQ however caused a great deal of harm by leaving a banner topic to that effect on the RoF forum page - for two and a half years after it was known that the title had it's own engine. Presumably their wives have to scream at those fellas before they take the garbage out.

[Toni74]

Why they don't buy Outerra?

… perché è certamente troppo costoso.