Hardware, software and the future of flight combat sims.

[flyingblind]

With the sad demise of CloD a thought occured to me. What is the future for realistic combat sims?

All serious simers want ever more realism and deeper immersion. Up until now the limiting factor has been the hardware. Even way above average home computers simply did not have the power to cope with photo realistic video, complex interactive objects plus processor hungry systems like lighting and partical effects and weather on their own let alone online with a whole bunch of players and AIs.

This is all now rapidly changing. CloD has shown that even a home PC is reaching the point where they can indeed handle that level of complexity. The problem with CloD was not the code as such as the problems could have been fixed or even better code written. The problem was that there was simply insufficiant funds available. Or rather the amount of money required was too large to see a return on the investment.

So my point is - are computers now so powerful they hold out the prospect of unbelievable realism and complexity but the cost of developing the code and the modeling to realise this is so prohibitably expensive that developers are reaching a point where a profit cannot be made if hardware coming out now or the near future is to be fully utilised.

If this is the case (and please feel free to disagree) then what are the solutions?

Is this as good as it will get for some time? 777 Studios have already stated quite bluntly that they will be taking a few steps back from CloD purely because of time and cost constraints.

This also has serious consequences for hardware manufacturers and vendors. As long as they are playing catch up with PC users asperations they have a ready market for their wares but if those asperations are being thwarted by the developement cost of games then the point and need for upgrades vanishes.

Thoughts anyone?

[SlipBall]

There are extremely strong computers coming in the near not to distant future...if there is demand, software will still be coded for flight combat

[baronWastelan]

You answered your own question with: "Is this as good as it will get for some time? 777 Studios have already stated quite bluntly that they will be taking a few steps back from CloD purely because of time and cost constraints."

They know how many "serious simmers" there are, did the math and determined the potential pay-off from catering to this market.

[SlipBall]

You answered your own question with: "Is this as good as it will get for some time? 777 Studios have already stated quite bluntly that they will be taking a few steps back from CloD purely because of time and cost constraints."

They know how many "serious simmers" there are, did the math and determined the potential pay-off from catering to this market.


Yes I think that you are right on...lack of objects, now thats another story:evil:

[flyingblind]

Yes, thats my point. If there is enough demand. But if the cost of writing the code becomes greater than the demand can support then no one will write it.

It is why console games do so well. Because the power of a console is limited in comparison to a good PC there is no point in producing large, complex maps and all the other things simers expect plus the users are quite happy with the limited input of their controllers. If it can be done on a PC people want it but they will only get it if developers get a return.

[SlipBall]

Call me crazy but If Oleg could have delivered (everything), I would have payed much much more.

[JG52Uther]

IMO people are too greedy these days.I'm sure a lot of people who bought CoD were new to the il2 scene, perhaps younger, and, because they owned an o/c i5 2500k etc simply expected to wind the settings up to max and play. It took me several years before I could even fly il2 at max settings.
il2 was always like that for me, the game was far above the tech available to run it at full whack, and I was constantly upgrading just to get a few more FPS.
Things have changed somewhat now, and there is some fantastic tech available, but after CoD, I think things will be simplified, people expect a game to run flawlessly these days (and why wouldn't they TBH) but it was never my experience.I'm probably just too old, and remember the good old days.
Games like WoT, WT etc have great graphics, but are 'sim lite' and will sell millions, and have thousands playing.That seems to be the future.

[SlipBall]

When I first bought Il-2 I could not play it, took me a year to get a decent rig it sat on the shelf :grin:

[flyingblind]

Which seems more than a little sad to me and what I was getting at. Is it really the end of complex sims like CloD as we all drift back to simpler but unsatisfying games?

But has anyone any thoughts on solutions? Maybe rather than every team of game developers building their own complete world from the ground up some form of universal standard environment could be developed that contained all the physics and effects needed and which could accept third party plugins like Speed Tree or the lighting used in CloD. That way a developer could just concentrate on the models and game play needed for their own particular scenario. More of a collaboration of the whole games industry and even hardware manufacturers.

What is the point of powerfull computers if there is nothing to use them for. I am sure games are the major reason for home users wanting to upgrade. Everything else can be run on an ipad these days.

Not sure if the vested interests of competing developers would ever allow that to happen though.

[SlipBall]

I could be wrong big time, but I don't think a guy like Oleg with a vision, is ever gonna show up again...maybe luthier if someone would back him

[JG52Uther]

Well if I were them I wouldn't do it.There must be easier ways to make a living, without being attacked everytime you turn the computer on!

[SlipBall]

Well if I were them I wouldn't do it.There must be easier ways to make a living, without being attacked everytime you turn the computer on!


Yea no fun...isn't that why Oleg became a recluse, no longer one of the boys, hyperlobby and here. People can only take so much abuse

[Skoshi Tiger]

Damn! I just spent half an hour crafting a beautifully worded response to this topic - distilling my thirty years experiences in computing, software development and flight simming and - my bloody computer turned itself off!!! **&^%$* %%^&&% $#^%%^ - Heres the short version :rolleyes:

One of the problems is that although our hardware is still improving and processor power is increasing and following the old moores law, we haven't developed ways of harnessing that power.

All the major CPU and GPU platforms have plateaued in terms of clock rate and that increase in power is being increased in terms of number of processors Cores or texture units or whatever you wan't to call them.

To take advantage of that power the programs need to be multi threaded and contain tasks that can be solved using parallel processing, Graphics cards work good using this approach. Other areas of programming the sims are not so good.

In a recent interview at Sim HQ Albert Zhiltsov, one of lead ROF development people, was talking about the complexity of modern fligh sims and said

I am an optimist. I believe that right now — somewhere in the doorway of a university or an office — a young man leaves with a solid idea to make a project better than Rise of Flight. But, as we said earlier — it will be harder for him to do than it was for us, because the speed of life will increase even more and financial crises will put into question all existing business models again and again. James Cameron dove to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, using his own funds. Perhaps this young man will find an opportunity to test his strength; I wish him luck and will be happy to share my experience with him. I am an optimist.

Hopefully the person Albert was talking about will have the idea about making the program scalable accross miltiple cores (to realise that improvement in performance), be able to create a demonstator as proof of concept and will then be snapped up by one of the bigger development houses rather than out lay the costs from his own funds.

The scary thing is is that any development needs to be spending part of their profits on
research and development or the life of their product will be limited. Oleg knew this and this approach showed it through out the life of the Il2 series up until present. Unfortunately he forgot that they do have to make an actual profit and they couldn't get it together before funds ran out and COD development came to a crashing halt.

My biggest fear is that the new il2 sim will go the other way and will not get that fundimental development to the core of the product and the development will be focused on content. The problem with this approach is that when something does arive that is fundimentally better it will be too late to catch up.

To fund this development a steady stream of income is required. It shows how distructive the whinning, and snide remarks can be to these products.

[MadBlaster]

in theory, one of the benefits of object oriented code is re-usability. not sure how much of old IL-2 they were able to carry forward into CLoD. they also farmed out the trees to SpeedTree and there was a post from Liz Lemon about "borrowing" some code. so, it wasn't all on them.

then, you think what happened to hardware and software over the last seven years? dual core, multi-thread, dx10/11...etc. its all constantly changing. so the developers have to learn this on the fly because the customer wants to use his expensive hardware to the fullest. lol, maybe in few years 580 card goes for $50. anyway, it might be good idea for 1C to just keep fine tuning this code on the down low. eventually (hopefully) there will be better times.

[SlipBall]

They say that the memristor will have the same leap forward for mankind this century, as the resistor did in the last century.
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/07/hp-memristors/

[startrekmike]

I would say that at this point, the DCS world modules (other than FC3) are pretty much the end all and be all of flight sims in the market.

While I like CloD, it's realism level pales in comparison.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I would say that at this point, the DCS world modules (other than FC3) are pretty much the end all and be all of flight sims in the market.

While I like CloD, it's realism level pales in comparison.

I've bought a few of the DCS products including the P-51 and they have some excelent systems modeling and features. Great Flight simulator. Can't wait until they release the production version.

That said as a "Combat Flight Simulator" it is lacking in that the P-51 has no contemporary targets, or maps, or adverseraries. These are not critisims, The Developers have never stated that they would have. The P-51 is just as they said it would be.

I see that some people are holding out for a contemporary environment for the P-51. That would be great. But I am not holding my breath. How long have we been waiting for the Nivarda map? It just must be very hard to create maps for DCS World.

[baronWastelan]

Also worth mentioning that the desktop PC is this decade's equivalent of the CD player, inasmuch as the under-30 consumer would rather have nothing to do with them. (yes, I still buy CD's :rolleyes:)

For example, in my current employment, my Android phone is serving in the role a laptop would have 10 years ago.

[Igo kyu]

Damn! I just spent half an hour crafting a beautifully worded response to this topic - distilling my thirty years experiences in computing, software development and flight simming and - my bloody computer turned itself off!!! **&^%$* %%^&&% $#^%%^ - Heres the short version :rolleyes:

One of the problems is that although our hardware is still improving and processor power is increasing and following the old moores law, we haven't developed ways of harnessing that power.
This may be the answer:

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/12/03/2312241/auto-threading-compiler-could-restore-moores-law-gains

Of course, it may also turn out not to work, but I don't know why it wouldn't.

[Igo kyu]

lol, maybe in few years 580 card goes for $50.
Man, I paid £300 (bar the odd penny) for a GeForce 2 Pro/GTS in 2000, don't joke about that, it's not funny.

<edit> It ran IL*2 fine, full details at 1600 x 1200, so there was nothing wrong with the deal, it was just expensive.

[Skoshi Tiger]

This may be the answer:

http://developers.slashdot.org/story/12/12/03/2312241/auto-threading-compiler-could-restore-moores-law-gains

Of course, it may also turn out not to work, but I don't know why it wouldn't.

Very interesting read. Thanks for the link.

[zapatista]

I would say that at this point, the DCS world modules (other than FC3) are pretty much the end all and be all of flight sims in the market.

While I like CloD, it's realism level pales in comparison.

i dont think that is true, but to be honest i havnt spent much time with the DCS p51, only tried it on a friends pc a few times (compared to what is prob 1000 hrs or more on il2 over the years). their DCS p51 is very good, has complex systems modeled etc, but in actual "flight feel", the issue of representing the sensation of flight itself, with the aircraft interacting against the wind and weather, to me the DCS p51 experience feels almost sterile compared to the "living world" of flying aircraft in CoD (or late versions of the previous il2 series)

for ex read some of the threads/posts on this forum on how to activate some of the currently inactive weather elements in CoD, then go and try some crosswind landings with a strong gale, its very realistic (because of the cpu/gpu load, most pc's can only run those as single player missions, but worth a try if you havnt experienced it). similarly for the feel of doing barrel rolls, immelman's, hammerhead's and other flight maneuvers, for me CoD is significantly superior.

then look at the detailed physical damage model to the aircraft in CoD, each element carefully modeled (em but not working perfectly yet), there is nothing like that in DCS p51, neither is the cockpit as photo realistic and 3D as in CoD

the DCS p51 is pretty amazing however, and to me is the next best thing. i really hope they proceed quickly with their with their new gfx engine built (to be used for all their aircraft), and that they add more ww2 flyable aircraft so the p51 can be used for actual combat flying in some historical settings

i am not stating these things to argue and currently DCS is our next best hope in ww2 combat sims, currently however their p51 aircraft is even as a single aircraft not quiet up to par to the CoD aircraft (but some of those have individual bugs that would still need resolving) and the environment it flies around in (weather, scenery, etc)

[SlipBall]

Yes, thats my point. If there is enough demand. But if the cost of writing the code becomes greater than the demand can support then no one will write it.

It is why console games do so well. Because the power of a console is limited in comparison to a good PC there is no point in producing large, complex maps and all the other things simers expect plus the users are quite happy with the limited input of their controllers. If it can be done on a PC people want it but they will only get it if developers get a return.


Maybe 1C will hold on to the engine for a few years and then re release. I'm talking about the original code being the starting point and further developed and polished for the Mediterranean for example. Who here wouldn't buy it? :-P

[NZtyphoon]

Damn! I just spent half an hour crafting a beautifully worded response to this topic - distilling my thirty years experiences in computing, software development and flight simming and - my bloody computer turned itself off!!! **&^%$* %%^&&% $#^%%^ - Heres the short version :rolleyes:


The scary thing is is that any development needs to be spending part of their profits on
research and development or the life of their product will be limited. Oleg knew this and this approach showed it through out the life of the Il2 series up until present. Unfortunately he forgot that they do have to make an actual profit and they couldn't get it together before funds ran out and COD development came to a crashing halt.

My biggest fear is that the new il2 sim will go the other way and will not get that fundimental development to the core of the product and the development will be focused on content. The problem with this approach is that when something does arive that is fundimentally better it will be too late to catch up.

To fund this development a steady stream of income is required. It shows how distructive the whinning, and snide remarks can be to these products.

From what I read on the BoS developer's Friday updates they have very deliberately been conservative, staying within a set time limit and (presumably) budget. I'm in favour of this because, much as I enjoy playing CLoD, I'm aware of its underdevelopment and the limitations that have resulted.

I haven't been around the entire time of CLoD development and introduction to the market, so I'm probably not as loyal to it as some are. However, I do know that CLoD unfortunately garnered a bad public reputation on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/IL-2-Sturmovik-Cliffs-Dover-Pc/dp/B004L5SJ4Y) and elsewhere, which still hasn't been fully dispelled, and sales must have suffered. Sad, considering how much time, energy and money was poured into it. CLoD deserved to succeed, and I hope someone will be able to use the software to develop a good immersion combat sim.

I also hope that the new IL2 iteration will succeed because success will hopefully lead to more developments more in tune with the wants and expectations of players. It must be a fine balancing act to develop a game which will go some way to satisfying the wants and desires of "immersion" gamers, versus those of the console variety.

[zapatista]

From what I read on the BoS developer's Friday updates they have very deliberately been conservative, staying within a set time limit and (presumably) budget. I'm in favour of this because, much as I enjoy playing CLoD, I'm aware of its underdevelopment and the limitations that have resulted. .

that is a twist on reality that the sales pitch wants you to believe, reality is somewhat different. from its very inception BoS is simply not capable to come anywhere close to the realism of CoD in simulating realistic flight models, or use highly detailed scenery and objects, neither does it allow for a high multpilayer count with a high AI activity figure. and the current designers have said as much themselves. the BoS ground scenery will again be sterile and empty, and be devoid of any activity

what they will do is sell you a reskinned RoF (same engine, same design team) with a few ww2 aircraft, and from then on you'll be expected to pay another 20 to 50$ per months for further aircraft and newer object, and if you dont hop on that jason-gravy-train you'll be told "you just dont want flightsims to succeed", while he orders his next lexus

when you compare the expectations for BoS with the current CoD, BoS looses out on just about every point in a direct comparison

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support"). if you look at the product RoF is designing now for BoS, be ready to be disappointed if you think it will be anywhere near CoD/il2 in performance or ability, using the il2sturmovik name is just a re-branding from the 1C company who funds its development, its not a content description.

RoF current sales blurbs are deliberately pitching their next products ability and performance very low, because, well, it will be low compared to CoD, and they dont want to get sucked into not delivering on high promises which they know from the start they wont be able to meet. it will be pretty, it will have ww2 planes, people can play airquake and !S each other on forums and pretend to be the red baron, but it wont be il2 as we know it, or would expect it :)

.

[SlipBall]

^
Really an unfortunate state of affairs...I wonder if we could ever get something going with 1C again and the SOW engine

[flyingblind]

What I am saying is that the glass ceiling for developing sims and complex games is no longer the hardware limitations but the cost of coding the software. Gamers cough if they pay more than £50 for a game whereas professional graphics packages cost £1000, a MIS system £20 or £30 grand and a bespoke database system for the police or the NHS a few £million with no guarantee it will work. Ok there are many more gamers willing to buy a game and only one NHS to pay for its own software but the amount of coding and the costs involved are probably not that different. If more gamers move to consoles because that is where they are happy as they cannot be bothered with complex PC based sims or the expense of hardware then the financial base contracts further shifting the centre of balance untile it all capsizes.

Is this all inevitable? One thing I wondered was if a development company or a consortium of software and even hardware companies could get together and produce a universal standardise game engine that was adaptable enough to provide the evironment for a whole range of games and be more future proof and expandable to meet hardware advances.

This would spread the cost of the underlying effects and physics of the game over many more units leaving the game designers to concentrate on the 3D modeling, and game play of their offerings.

Being standardised it would also mean 3rd parties could concentrate on producing more specialised stuff like a wider variaty of trees or buildings etc. and know that they could be used in any game using the engine as simple plugins.

The same engine could be used for flight sims of any era or epic motor races such as the Milli Miglia or Paris to Dakar Rally etc.

Would this ever be feasable or even desirable. I don't know.

[Davy TASB]

[B]

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support").

.

Timidly said indeedy... :grin:.

By the way, I didn't say that "I dont want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because I kept being told constantly it needed support", I said I was willing to spend that amount of money on a WW1 sim as it was my preferred theatre of war and that I probably wouldn't be spending daft money on BoS because I can take or leave the Russian air war scenario.
I also said that you dont realise how much money you do spend seeing as you spend it in dribs and drabs and that you dont miss it.
(Jason DOES keep using the support the sim or we die though and he will probably keep doing it) That said, I bought RoF and the payware because I wanted to, not because I was told ROF needed support so yer talking out if your rear end saying otherwise.

I aint a hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums either and I certainly dont hate CloD by in any shape or form. I'm slightly disappointed with some aspects of it (who isn't) but quite enjoy it overall.
Been playing the IL2 series since its conception. I just dont bother posting much in forums, ANY of 'em.
I'm a very sporadic poster me. :cool:

Have a nice day.
Love from Mr Timid

[NZtyphoon]

that is a twist on reality that the sales pitch wants you to believe, reality is somewhat different. from its very inception BoS is simply not capable to come anywhere close to the realism of CoD in simulating realistic flight models, or use highly detailed scenery and objects, neither does it allow for a high multpilayer count with a high AI activity figure. and the current designers have said as much themselves. the BoS ground scenery will again be sterile and empty, and be devoid of any activity

what they will do is sell you a reskinned RoF (same engine, same design team) with a few ww2 aircraft, and from then on you'll be expected to pay another 20 to 50$ per months for further aircraft and newer object, and if you dont hop on that jason-gravy-train you'll be told "you just dont want flightsims to succeed", while he orders his next lexus

when you compare the expectations for BoS with the current CoD, BoS looses out on just about every point in a direct comparison

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support"). if you look at the product RoF is designing now for BoS, be ready to be disappointed if you think it will be anywhere near CoD/il2 in performance or ability, using the il2sturmovik name is just a re-branding from the 1C company who funds its development, its not a content description.

RoF current sales blurbs are deliberately pitching their next products ability and performance very low, because, well, it will be low compared to CoD, and they dont want to get sucked into not delivering on high promises which they know from the start they wont be able to meet. it will be pretty, it will have ww2 planes, people can play airquake and !S each other on forums and pretend to be the red baron, but it wont be il2 as we know it, or would expect it :)

.

Did anybody say that BOS will be anything like CLOD in performance or ability?

CLOD was released underdeveloped, after lots of promises by developers who blew their budget and, into the bargain, garnered a bad public reputation which it has never truly shaken off. Sure, it is playable but still so underdeveloped compared to its potential and, until someone commits finance time and patience into a program of proper engine development it's going to stay a dead-end. What's so good about any of that? It's all too easy to complain about the state of game play, but gamers who demand everything be bigger and better and more complex at every step are just as responsible as anyone for what has happened.

The fact is that CLOD, and other over-ambitious games, have ruined it for everybody - no-one wins. Love it or hate it we are stuck with a conservative, back to the roots flight sim which will at least be fully developed, all fingers xed. As for the comments about twist reality and on sales pitches etc? Of course it's a sales pitch, but at least there's some honesty there. :-)

[kendo65]

Zapa, you are refusing to acknowledge that a key reason for COD's difficulties was that the developers over-reached themselves by being unrealistic (with hindsight, verging on reckless) about what exactly a development team of their size would be able to implement in the time available.

When the various features for COD were being trailed several years ago I was as excited about them as anyone. With the experience and results achieved in il-2 I had no doubt that they would succeed.

The scale of the ambition was breathtaking both then and now. But obviously things didn't go to plan even well before the release. Stories of staff being dismissed, the switch mid-stream from OpenGL to Direct X, Oleg quitting (or being removed?). Each one of those would have caused disruption and slowed down development.

But, it seems inescapable to conclude (again, with hindsight) that perhaps the key reason was because the scope of the project was just too ambitious. Partly that was down to the number of cutting edge features that were being built into the engine, but part was also down to poor management and planning (e.g. the decision to devote so much effort to a full set of detailed ground vehicles [superfluous in a BOB scenario - could surely have been delayed until sequel], non-essential aircraft (ME-108, Sunderland - even the Tiger Moth and the training aspect could have been left out at least initally with little detriment)).

When they were forced to release the game unfinished (after several years of development time and investment), many of the basics were not in place - a lashed together, clunky GUI being the most glaring example.

The game was released to a storm of disappointment and criticism, some of it over the top and unfair, but much of it was understandable and unavoidable given the state of the game.

The state of the game at release can only be understood as a direct consequence of earlier design and development decisions. They over-reached themselves and then didn't make the difficult decision of scaling back the ambition until it became apparent that there was no way they were going to get everything ready in time. Then there was a panicked stepping on the brakes and several features (dynamic weather, campaign) had to be postponed.

Complaining now that 777 are not going to go down the same route strikes me as a wilful refusal to face facts and learn the hard lessons that are all too obvious from the COD saga.

[zapatista]

Zapa, you are refusing to acknowledge that a key reason for COD's difficulties was that the developers over-reached themselves by being unrealistic (with hindsight, verging on reckless) about what exactly a development team of their size would be able to implement in the time available.
...........................
The state of the game at release can only be understood as a direct consequence of earlier design and development decisions.

err, emmm, well,....

NOPE !! :)

as in the previous il2 series, oleg used a modular concept during development, where each main component was developed separately by a different team. it is only when in the last phase of the project all the parts were being assembled that the performance problem of the gfx engine showed insurmountable problems that they couldnt fix in time for the release

the main thing we can blame oleg for in that regard is that he wasnt in the office supervising 24/7 as he had been in the previous series, and he should under normal circumstances have spotted that issue much earlier on

since the gfx engine is the main element that all the other parts are tagged onto, it not being fixed became a major issue for the whole game, and yes they then started slshing and cutting various elements that loaded the gpu and cpu, but as you well rember that didnt fix it. in the end it needed a full gfx engine rebuild (which did fix it)



Complaining now that 777 are not going to go down the same route strikes me as a willful refusal to face facts and learn the hard lessons that are all too obvious from the COD saga.

BoS is not on a different route to the same destination at all, its on a different continent and driving on the other side of the road to a completely different destination

i find it rather funny that people, including you by the looks of your latest comment, keep somehow believing this new RoF venture is going to produce the holy grail of il2sturmovik we have all been waiting for the last 5 yrs, and it just aint so folks. its not aiming to be, and it cant by its very design limitations. think re skinned RoF with ww2 aircraft instead :)

[addman]

When you have stellar, super-gorgeous cockpits like CloD but basic wingman commands that doesn't function properly -and still doesn't- then you know they over-reached. Ambition should drive every development team but when it starts to conflict with budget and deadlines then you need to snap back to reality and sort out your priorities. As I mentioned before, some part of CloD are absolutely spectacular but the basic things that are missing and stuff they just threw together last minute just undermines the overall experience.

Game developers aren't charity workers, they're in it to make money and especially publishers. They look at R&D expenditure and then they look at potential revenue to make their decisions which games to develop. The games market is soooo much more diverse right now and people are playing games on their consoles, on their phones, on their tablets and on their PC's. Developers are far more spread out across the board and many are a one-man team creating 99 cent apps for iOS or Android and are making good money because of low cash-burn rates. The fight for resources to develop games are getting tighter, just the other day THQ (pretty large game developer/publisher) filed for bankruptcy and they have some pretty valuable IP's in their possession. All I'm trying to say is that we are going to have to face fact that times have changed and we have to make due with what we get. The SoW project was admirably ambitious but it became it's demise, whiners or no whiners.

[startrekmike]

err, emmm, well,....

NOPE !! :)

as in the previous il2 series, oleg used a modular concept during development, where each main component was developed separately by a different team. it is only when in the last phase of the project all the parts were being assembled that the performance problem of the gfx engine showed insurmountable problems that they couldnt fix in time for the release

the main thing we can blame oleg for in that regard is that he wasnt in the office supervising 24/7 as he had been in the previous series, and he should under normal circumstances have spotted that issue much earlier on

since the gfx engine is the main element that all the other parts are tagged onto, it not being fixed became a major issue for the whole game, and yes they then started slshing and cutting various elements that loaded the gpu and cpu, but as you well rember that didnt fix it. in the end it needed a full gfx engine rebuild (which did fix it)




BoS is not on a different route to the same destination at all, its on a different continent and driving on the other side of the road to a completely different destination

i find it rather funny that people, including you by the looks of your latest comment, keep somehow believing this new RoF venture is going to produce the holy grail of il2sturmovik we have all been waiting for the last 5 yrs, and it just aint so folks. its not aiming to be, and it cant by its very design limitations. think re skinned RoF with ww2 aircraft instead :)


It is clear that you are so blinded by your loyalty to CloD that you refuse to even give anything else a chance, the new IL-2 is not going to be ROF reskinned for WWII, to even think that is pretty silly considering that they have made it clear that the engine is capable of doing more and that they are doing a lot of work to make sure it feels like a WWII sim.

You seem to think that the idea of this new IL-2 is somehow a personal insult against you and the CloD community and you refuse to accept that any sim might actually be better (in the case of barely touching DCS World and deciding it was inferior just because it is not exactly like CloD, even though it is clearly superior when it comes to systems modeling, flight physics and damage model).

Some random company could make the best sim in the world, a technical marvel and you would still say it sucks compared to CloD just because it is not CloD.

CloD is a great sim but it has some clear flaws that are never going to get fixed now, it's development ended with the last steam patch and perhaps it is time we accept that fact, continue enjoying the sim but also feel free to look forward to something new, something that might actually be good.

This pissing match between "the ROF crowd" and the "IL-2 crowd" is getting tiresome, perhaps it is time to just accept that things have changed that are outside our control (and possibly for the better, we will have to give them the benefit of the doubt) instead of just saying "if it ain't CloD, it ain't a sim!".

I don't even know why I bother reading these forums, I feel like I have to take a side (because I play both ROF and CLoD) and I don't want to.

[kendo65]

...

i find it rather funny that people, including you by the looks of your latest comment, keep somehow believing this new RoF venture is going to produce the holy grail of il2sturmovik we have all been waiting for the last 5 yrs, and it just aint so folks. its not aiming to be, and it cant by its very design limitations. think re skinned RoF with ww2 aircraft instead :)

I really don't think the new venture is going to be the holy grail and I'm not ecstatic to be contemplating scaling back the ambition and dream of COD's vision. (though I'd given up on seeing a working, practical realisation of that vision some time ago. Maybe that's why COD's death hasn't affected me as much as it obviously has some others here. For me the COD dream died slowly and painfully 6-12 months ago)

But I think it's just too hard to say at the moment how far 1C/777 can push things in the next year to 18 months. Your characterisation that it will be ROF with WW2 aircraft is I think the most pessimistic reading possible of what the final result could be. Already in the last week there have been signs and hints that there could be fairly significant advances from the current ROF state of play with improvements to terrain, cockpits and even (possibly) DX11.

But, they seem to have made a decision right at the outset to dampen and underplay expectations - maybe a wise move given that it was partly the fall from 1C/Maddox Game's sky-high expectation to the reality of what COD was like at launch that created so much disappointment.

So, is it a very calculated case of under-promise and over-deliver from 777, or is it just the abandonment of vision and ambition for mediocrity and the art of the possible? I think it's really too early to tell, and I'm not writing any blank cheques for 777 concerning BOS. As more information becomes available and as they get a better idea of the rate of progress and how much they can do, then we will be able to judge.

Also, please remember that COD didn't cover itself in glory in its first year and a half. To hear some people you would think we were giving up a flawless and perfectly realised piece of software for a half-promise of mediocrity. COD had at least as many deep flaws and omissions to set alongside its successes, and ultimately it failed because it couldn't advance enough in the time since release to inspire the continued confidence of its investors.

[SlipBall]

When you have stellar, super-gorgeous cockpits like CloD but basic wingman commands that doesn't function properly -and still doesn't- then you know they over-reached. Ambition should drive every development team but when it starts to conflict with budget and deadlines then you need to snap back to reality and sort out your priorities. As I mentioned before, some part of CloD are absolutely spectacular but the basic things that are missing and stuff they just threw together last minute just undermines the overall experience.

Game developers aren't charity workers, they're in it to make money and especially publishers. They look at R&D expenditure and then they look at potential revenue to make their decisions which games to develop. The games market is soooo much more diverse right now and people are playing games on their consoles, on their phones, on their tablets and on their PC's. Developers are far more spread out across the board and many are a one-man team creating 99 cent apps for iOS or Android and are making good money because of low cash-burn rates. The fight for resources to develop games are getting tighter, just the other day THQ (pretty large game developer/publisher) filed for bankruptcy and they have some pretty valuable IP's in their possession. All I'm trying to say is that we are going to have to face fact that times have changed and we have to make due with what we get. The SoW project was admirably ambitious but it became it's demise, whiners or no whiners.

What is 1 million copies x 50.- .....making money:-P

It is clear that you are so blinded by your loyalty to CloD that you refuse to even give anything else a chance, the new IL-2 is not going to be ROF reskinned for WWII, to even think that is pretty silly considering that they have made it clear that the engine is capable of doing more and that they are doing a lot of work to make sure it feels like a WWII sim.

You seem to think that the idea of this new IL-2 is somehow a personal insult against you and the CloD community and you refuse to accept that any sim might actually be better (in the case of barely touching DCS World and deciding it was inferior just because it is not exactly like CloD, even though it is clearly superior when it comes to systems modeling, flight physics and damage model).

Some random company could make the best sim in the world, a technical marvel and you would still say it sucks compared to CloD just because it is not CloD.

CloD is a great sim but it has some clear flaws that are never going to get fixed now, it's development ended with the last steam patch and perhaps it is time we accept that fact, continue enjoying the sim but also feel free to look forward to something new, something that might actually be good.

This pissing match between "the ROF crowd" and the "IL-2 crowd" is getting tiresome, perhaps it is time to just accept that things have changed that are outside our control (and possibly for the better, we will have to give them the benefit of the doubt) instead of just saying "if it ain't CloD, it ain't a sim!".

I don't even know why I bother reading these forums, I feel like I have to take a side (because I play both ROF and CLoD) and I don't want to.

Remember that BOS battle was largely a lot of ground pounding.

I really don't think the new venture is going to be the holy grail and I'm not ecstatic to be contemplating scaling back the ambition and dream of COD's vision. (though I'd given up on seeing a working, practical realisation of that vision some time ago. Maybe that's why COD's death hasn't affected me as much as it obviously has some others here. For me the COD dream died slowly and painfully 6-12 months ago)

But I think it's just too hard to say at the moment how far 1C/777 can push things in the next year to 18 months. Your characterisation that it will be ROF with WW2 aircraft is I think the most pessimistic reading possible of what the final result could be. Already in the last week there have been signs and hints that there could be fairly significant advances from the current ROF state of play with improvements to terrain, cockpits and even (possibly) DX11.

But, they seem to have made a decision right at the outset to dampen and underplay expectations - maybe a wise move given that it was partly the fall from 1C/Maddox Game's sky-high expectation to the reality of what COD was like at launch that created so much disappointment.

So, is it a very calculated case of under-promise and over-deliver from 777, or is it just the abandonment of vision and ambition for mediocrity and the art of the possible? I think it's really too early to tell, and I'm not writing any blank cheques for 777 concerning BOS. As more information becomes available and as they get a better idea of the rate of progress and how much they can do, then we will be able to judge.

Also, please remember that COD didn't cover itself in glory in its first year and a half. To hear some people you would think we were giving up a flawless and perfectly realised piece of software for a half-promise of mediocrity. COD had at least as many deep flaws and omissions to set alongside its successes, and ultimately it failed because it couldn't advance enough in the time since release to inspire the continued confidence of its investors.


I'm flying the release and having a blast...I work around a lot of the problems. I could be flying it for years to come :cool:

[startrekmike]

What is 1 million copies x 50.- .....making money:-P



Remember that BOS battle was largely a lot of ground pounding.




I'm flying the release and having a blast...I work around a lot of the problems. I could be flying it for years to come :cool:



I am aware that the battle of Stalingrad was a lot of ground pounding, I think it is still kinda silly to just assume that just because one has played ROF that one has all the knowledge available about the engines capabilities, it is like saying that you have read one book in a series so now you know how the whole series is going to go, it makes no sense.

I also enjoy CloD and I also work around it's problems, nobody is saying that BoS is going to come to your house and steal your copy of CloD, I just think that perhaps keeping a more open mind will help everyone.

Frankly, there is no need for us to argue about this, the sim is just being started and already some here seem to know exactly what will be produced and they have also already cast judgement on it.

We all know that even the hard core anti 777 guys are still going to buy BoS when it comes out, hell, they will probably even like it.

Who knows, it is too early to tell.

[Skoshi Tiger]

I was flying on ATAG Last night. 112 people at one stage flying in COD. At my 280ms ping I did not notice any warping. It was absolutely fantastic!

This is THE benchmark for any Combat Flight SIM Multiplayer experience.

I wait in anticipation to see if further titles in the IL2 series can match this performance.

Way back when ROF was released I expressed a concern about the limited player limits in the title. The ROF community immediately shot me down because apparently there were NO large scale air combats over the Western front and the places that I read about them were lying.

I stopped posting in that community shortly after.

[SlipBall]

I am aware that the battle of Stalingrad was a lot of ground pounding, I think it is still kinda silly to just assume that just because one has played ROF that one has all the knowledge available about the engines capabilities, it is like saying that you have read one book in a series so now you know how the whole series is going to go, it makes no sense.

I also enjoy CloD and I also work around it's problems, nobody is saying that BoS is going to come to your house and steal your copy of CloD, I just think that perhaps keeping a more open mind will help everyone.

Frankly, there is no need for us to argue about this, the sim is just being started and already some here seem to know exactly what will be produced and they have also already cast judgement on it.

We all know that even the hard core anti 777 guys are still going to buy BoS when it comes out, hell, they will probably even like it.

Who knows, it is too early to tell.


You must have read me wrong, I am not at all against ROF. I'm just saying that ground pounding will require something to pound.:-P

[Skoshi Tiger]

We all know that even the hard core anti 777 guys are still going to buy BoS when it comes out, hell, they will probably even like it.


Who are these "hard core anti 777 guys of whom you speak"? Personally I think you are being too dramatic.

None of the comments expressed in this thread match the pure hatred or venom and the malicious vitriol that was directed at the developers of IL2-COD. It was as if there was a campaign trying to make them fail.

Eveyone on this form wants Jason to produce the BEST flight sim available. It's just that some people are expressing concern over parts of the project. What is wrong with that? The Best way for the BOS developers to alay those concern is to answer questions and show us some of their preliminary work that they have done.

[startrekmike]

You must have read me wrong, I am not at all against ROF. I'm just saying that ground pounding will require something to pound.:-P

I bet that they are more than aware of that, again, we shall have to wait and see what their solution is.

Looking back, yeah, I read you wrong, I am just so used to blind ROF hatred on this board, I understand why it exists, I just don't think it needs to be so blind.

Anyway, sorry bout that, I stand corrected :)

[startrekmike]

Who are these "hard core anti 777 guys of whom you speak"? Personally I think you are being too dramatic.

None of the comments expressed in this thread match the pure hatred or venom and the malicious vitriol that was directed at the developers of IL2-COD. It was as if there was a campaign trying to make them fail.

Eveyone on this form wants Jason to produce the BEST flight sim available. It's just that some people are expressing concern that they do not think he will succeed.

Look, I understand why some IL-2 fans might be concerned, I totally get that but I don't think you need to look very hard to see that some on this forum are flat out against anything that 777 does, I am not sure why and perhaps it is just a extension of the anger that they feel after being ditched by the higher ups at 1C and Ubisoft but that is not the ROF fanbase's fault.

Also, I have seen some of your posts, while they don't carry the venom that some of the others do, they do insinuate that ROF is not a sim and that is just silly, if you say that ROF is not a sim then you might as well say that CloD is not a sim either, clickable cockpits or not, both do a very good job at simulating the aircraft (I do agree that ROF does not simulate the war very well but it does a fantastic job with the aircraft, even you have to admit that).

I think this whole thing became clear to me when folks on this forum try to say that CloD even beats DCS titles in the level of simulation, that is absurd as the DCS sims are easily more detailed in terms of flight dynamics, systems modeling, damage model and weapon performance than any other sim on the market, I don't say this as a DCS fanboy, I say this as a flight sim fanboy, one only needs to spend a short time with DCS A-10C to see that it is really something special, sure, the land does not look amazing but that still does not stop it from being the best air/ground combat sim on the market.

Ugh, starting to ramble, gotta cut this short.

CloD is a good sim, if anyone tries to tell me it is not, I tell them that they are wrong but I also think it is wrong to assume that it is the best, it is not and it really should not be used as a example for future projects as it really has it's annoying issues that should never have been there in the first place.

When I want to fly a quick mission in CloD, I have to set up one of the pre-builts so that it can be opened in the editor, open it in the editor, alter the plane types, AI (for all the good it does), change the ammo belts to my customs and then I can click play.

With IL-2 1946 and ROF, I can pick my map, my plane, the enemy, if I want a airstart or a ground start (I loathe air starts) and even alter my loadout, no fuss, no muss. I think this is a good example of why CloD should not be held up so high that we fail to see it's flaws, it is a good sim but the new IL-2 would be wise to steer clear of it's mistakes.

I play both, I enjoy both, I hate this feeling that I get in this forum that I have to choose a side because I have already chosen both.

[addman]

What is 1 million copies x 50.- .....making money:-P

I don't think CloD sold a million but please provide me with a link to that source though.

P.S Here's a link to vgchartz (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/53111/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover/), they aren't 100% accurate and I'm not sure if they include digital sales but usually it's pretty close to the mark.

[SlipBall]

I don't think CloD sold a million but please provide me with a link to that source though.

P.S Here's a link to vgchartz (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/53111/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover/), they aren't 100% accurate and I'm not sure if they include digital sales but usually it's pretty close to the mark.


No you misunderstood, the reason to invest was to sell a million copies like the original game if possible.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Also, I have seen some of your posts, while they don't carry the venom that some of the others do, they do insinuate that ROF is not a sim and that is just silly, if you say that ROF is not a sim then you might as well say that CloD is not a sim either, clickable cockpits or not, both do a very good job at simulating the aircraft (I do agree that ROF does not simulate the war very well but it does a fantastic job with the aircraft, even you have to admit that).

Please post a link to "some of [my] posts" that insinuate that ROF is not a sim. I think a re-read may be in order.

If you are talking about the IL2-BOS site very few of my posts mention Rise of flight except as a point of reference. The Sim being discussed on that forum is Il2 Battle of Stalingrad is memory serves me right.

I have created a thread in the Free Topic area that allows people to discuss what they would like to see in a sim in the year 2014

I have created a thread on game play and kill distributions.

I have expressed concern over graphical issues and multiplayer performance issues.

I have asked direct questions about game play and server administration.

Over all I have tried to be positive, but also that we should not lower our expectations of what a future should be like and in all my posts I have attempted to maintain a positive and respectful demeanor.


CloD is a good sim, if anyone tries to tell me it is not, I tell them that they are wrong but I also think it is wrong to assume that it is the best, it is not and it really should not be used as a example for future projects as it really has it's annoying issues that should never have been there in the first place.

When I want to fly a quick mission in CloD, I have to set up one of the pre-builts so that it can be opened in the editor, open it in the editor, alter the plane types, AI (for all the good it does), change the ammo belts to my customs and then I can click play.

With IL-2 1946 and ROF, I can pick my map, my plane, the enemy, if I want a airstart or a ground start (I loathe air starts) and even alter my loadout, no fuss, no muss. I think this is a good example of why CloD should not be held up so high that we fail to see it's flaws, it is a good sim but the new IL-2 would be wise to steer clear of it's mistakes.

I play both, I enjoy both, I hate this feeling that I get in this forum that I have to choose a side because I have already chosen both.

In response I will quote the words of Loft on the BoS site


Endless arguing over difficult decisions we need to make only scares off new users. We don’t expect every user to like every design decision we make, but once you we have stated your opinion it is enough and will remain on the forum forever for us to see. No need to endlessly vocalize your displeasure, over time it has a detrimental effect on the community.”

If certain people had shown this amount of respect for the CoD developers things may have turned out much differently.

But all this is pritty much off topic in this thread.

[flyingblind]

To be honest this wasn't really meant to be a discussion on CloD or RoF alone. But hey, this is a forum thread so it goes where it goes. I was surmising whether or not the cost of writing code for games that take full advantage of the possibilities of a modern PC is now becoming more than the return on sales so games developement is reaching a ceiling.

The next generation of games consoles will likely be out end of next year and are thought to be as powerful as a top spec PC today and 8 times as powerful as current consoles so maybe this problem will apply to them too. If indeed you think such a problem exists.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Too true, most of the problem comes from using the resorces from modern Hardware efficiently. Problem is that that Moores law states that computing power doubles every 18 months but our expectations expand much more rapidly than that!

[zapatista]

Look, I understand why some IL-2 fans might be concerned, I totally get that but I don't think you need to look very hard to see that some on this forum are flat out against anything that 777 does, I am not sure why and perhaps it is just a extension of the anger that they feel after being ditched by the higher ups at 1C and Ubisoft but that is not the ROF fanbase's fault.

Also, I have seen some of your posts, while they don't carry the venom that some of the others do, they do insinuate that ROF is not a sim and that is just silly, if you say that ROF is not a sim then you might as well say that CloD is not a sim either, clickable cockpits or not, both do a very good job at simulating the aircraft (I do agree that ROF does not simulate the war very well but it does a fantastic job with the aircraft, even you have to admit that).

no mikey, its not, RoF flight models are total crap in comparison to a sim like the old il2 or the current CoD. my 6 yo nephew could take off and land on his 1e try in RoF, and these were some of the trickiest and most temperamental aircraft to fly in real life. RoF uses canned and scripted flight models, not real time flight physics (flying around with a plane with no wings in RoF anyone ? or maybe just fly your little aircraft at full speed into the ground from 2000 m to see how "realistic" the end result looks). the funniest thing is that this can get only worse for BoS, because with their reskinning of RoF and adding in a new map they will encounter more of the RoF flight modeling limitations (as oleg predicted when he looked at RoF, and most of what he said about it turned out to be correct).



folks, i am away a few days and you all been fooled by a RoF plant

list "startrekmike"'s recent posts on this forum to get some idea of who and what he is, its like looking at a RoF advertising stream or infomercial, while he undermines and cuts down on CoD at every step he can

its common practice now with some game developers, they send their reps to various forums and websites to pretend they are normal users, and all the while they undermine the competitor and glorify their own product to increase sales and reputation

he's either jason, loft, or one of their stooges, but whatever he is he is not a normal CoD player who has come to exchange information and try and get the most out of the game

and typical for the RoF dood's to employ these underhanded and misleading tactics

mikey, go home, you just been rumbled :)

[Bearcat]

I was flying on ATAG Last night. 112 people at one stage flying in COD. At my 280ms ping I did not notice any warping. It was absolutely fantastic!
This is THE benchmark for any Combat Flight SIM Multiplayer experience.
I wait in anticipation to see if further titles in the IL2 series can match this performance.
Way back when ROF was released I expressed a concern about the limited player limits in the title. The ROF community immediately shot me down because apparently there were NO large scale air combats over the Western front and the places that I read about them were lying.
I stopped posting in that community shortly after.

That's PDG with no warping.. I hope that some of whatever makes that possible in CoD can be implemented in BoS.. but I have yet to fly CoD online as I just got it working offline with my upgrade.. It isn't bad I am still trying to tweak my settings.. I have some issues but i think they may be more settings related.. so I am trying to work through them before I even get online.

You must have read me wrong, I am not at all against ROF. I'm just saying that ground pounding will require something to pound.:-P

.. and for Stalingrad .. a lot to pound.. When I think about all this.. this whole new thing.. I think of sims other than CoD and RoF and even when I think of IL2 I can't help but look at it all as a cumulative kind of equation.. as in why they can't get some of the things that were right in all these sims and kind of work them into a viable product.




CloD is a good sim, if anyone tries to tell me it is not, I tell them that they are wrong but I also think it is wrong to assume that it is the best, it is not and it really should not be used as a example for future projects as it really has it's annoying issues that should never have been there in the first place.

When I want to fly a quick mission in CloD, I have to set up one of the pre-builts so that it can be opened in the editor, open it in the editor, alter the plane types, AI (for all the good it does), change the ammo belts to my customs and then I can click play.

With IL-2 1946 and ROF, I can pick my map, my plane, the enemy, if I want a airstart or a ground start (I loathe air starts) and even alter my loadout, no fuss, no muss. I think this is a good example of why CloD should not be held up so high that we fail to see it's flaws, it is a good sim but the new IL-2 would be wise to steer clear of it's mistakes.

I play both, I enjoy both, I hate this feeling that I get in this forum that I have to choose a side because I have already chosen both.

My sentiments exactly..

I don't think CloD sold a million but please provide me with a link to that source though.

P.S Here's a link to vgchartz (http://www.vgchartz.com/game/53111/il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-of-dover/), they aren't 100% accurate and I'm not sure if they include digital sales but usually it's pretty close to the mark.

That's an interesting link.. so is that 300k ?

[Igo kyu]

so is that 300k ?
No, they are saying 30k.

Which sounds low to me, but I know of nothing that proves it isn't true.

[Meusli]

That's retail sales in the USA and Europe but not Russia, it does not include digital sales either.

[Bearcat]

Gotcha.. I got my copy through DD.. and Russia is a vast market for this genre.. I would be curious to know how big the sakles actually were.. and for IL2 as well..