Originally Posted by JG14_Jagr (Post 270294)

I've seen some of the production necessary for the creation of a flight sim.. I've done research for a couple of sim companies and beta tested quite a few games/simulations. I can tell you with all honesty that the scope of what COD developers tried to create is beyond what can be realistically developed in a time frame that will not lag generations behind hardware development. I was involved in Beta testing Falcon 4.0 and the goals were quite similar.. and after putting in enormous amount of work, Hardware 3D came along and rendered (no pun intended) much of the work useless since it used a software 3D engine. The scope of it was massive as is COD.

The game is not where it should have been for release.. I don't have to tell you that.I'll give you my opinions based on some experience as to what happened and why. The game was developed over a long period of time by a limited number of staffers. It was not the primary project, it was developed almost as a side job while other projects were being done for a significant part of the time involved. There were times when it was more or less shelved for periods of time. There was people joining and leaving..other people having to get up to speed and people who were experts on certain areas moved on..its what happens in software development. The original goals were worked on and many very cool things were developed and update and hardware 3D technology and CPU powers expanded. I'd bet that the idea of potentially creating a full 3D war game..ground, sea, and air, integrated successfully for the first time in this kind of Fidelity and graphics. Some of those goals were counterproductive.. some of the detail on the ground sucked away resources that a pure flight sim could have used elsewhere.

Eventually the project was on the verge of losing its funding and the resources were going to be moved on to more profitable ventures. So, it became fish or cut bait time.. and the guys still working on it began to try and pull everything together and disabled anything they hadn't yet implemented. A date was set and they began to move towards it and then the Epilepsy Filter issue came up and made an already bad situation even worse..7 years of anticipation made it just about impossible to have a well received release because there is no way that everything that had been talked about could be reay on release.

There was a reason why they game was released when it was, those pressures usually come from the producers who are funding things.. since a couple of weeks of patching have made a world of difference, its obvious that they were not in a position where 2 weeks was going to be allowed. The package got out the door and we have what we have. I for one played IL2 from the beginning and still do. And I can see the core potential of this sim to take over where IL2 has left off. There is 100X more headroom on this engine to really bring in some great things over the next weeks, months, and even years. I think anyone can see that.

I think that the time line they have laid out is a good one.. their priorities are in order.. performance and core hardware support is first, to be followed by fixes to game play. The fixes they have made in ust the last couple of weeks have made an enormous difference for most people. The thing that people need to realize is that PC FLight sims are a dying breed.. you won't see western based houses build them to this level of detail because the time required exceeds the return when you are paying western engineer salaries. You won't see many of them because development houses can code for PS3 and Xbox and get a much better return for far less effort.

There are serious issues to sort out. Performance and hardware support are the biggest in my opinion. Multiplayer would be next, and while they are doing that, there will be a host of smaller game play fixes that get implemented while they are "under the hood" working on other things. Once they reach a certain level of performance and stability, then they can polish this for months if not years and it will still keep getting better. Some people are fixated on the smallest of game play issues while there are far more serious problems to devote resources to initially.. you need to have a little patience and common sense..

If you are a flight sim fan, you have to realize that simulations like this will not be coming out anymore, for a good reason..they are a bear to build and don't give the quick return that other titles do. I bought 2 copies, about $65 US. The game is not where I want it to be, but I understand that it can be more than I ever hoped in time. I hope they succeed..

Originally Posted by JG14_Jagr (Post 270294)

I've seen some of the production necessary for the creation of a flight sim..

Originally Posted by Heliocon (Post 270282)

Who is late in telling you? Me? If you are talking about me I actually have a pretty good track record with predictions as to specific problems and remedies. David is just to lazy to go back and read them because all he does is troll anyone who has any criticisms of the game.

Originally Posted by Heliocon (Post 270207)

+1 - Exactly what I have been saying since release - there seems to be a serious lack of oversight/planning and they spent way too much time on features they cannot currently implement or even think about implementing. You dont invest time into modeling and programming things that you cannot integrate into the game. The same lack of planning is apparent in the devs comments over time and the lack of important features (like being able to fly around buildings...) without a huge and absurd hit to the fps.

Originally Posted by Langnasen (Post 270455)

200 planes? BS. Most I've managed is 130+ planes, and the slowdowns, as I've recently found, are severe (unplayable). 125 He111s with 18 Me110s as escort can bomb London ok, but I had to remove the 24 Hurries that intercepted them because I was seeing 6fps regularly. The CPU can handle only so much abuse.

Originally Posted by David Hayward (Post 270519)

Helicon, "all is doomed!" and "the devs are stupid!" posts are not nearly as specific or predictive as you seem to think they are. I've read your posts. They are unfailingly pointless.

This is a perfect example:

Exactly what part of that whine-fest is going to help improve this game? Where are the remedies?

Originally Posted by dali (Post 270465)

what we have right now is more or less empty shell and with its set of problems. Both technical and design ones. I can accpet that some people are big fans and are happy even with empty buckett, hoping, that it will be filled by somebody in due time...but that somebody has to have budget. Budget doesn't come with poorly managed game development. So it will not be my fault if COD series is no more because I criticise it, but it will be 1C, Maddox games (whatever has left of it) and project manager's fault.
Oleg Maddox has made himself quite a respectable name in domain of combat flight simulation, I'm sure he will make sure it remains so. with this or any other project.

Originally Posted by recoilfx (Post 270530)

David, unfortunately, all of us will bear none stop whining for a long while. That's just how it is with an unfinished game.

Originally Posted by Baron (Post 270527)

Yes what a bust, AAA + 18 Me110 + 125 He111 bombing LONDON with 30 bombs each = 3750 bombs, and u get slowdowns.


Seriously, someone need to sack those hack programmers over there.