http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27848

It was here that it was stated as fixed but "not ready for the world".^

It can't be worse than what we already have. Its THE major issue right now for online players!



As for "Battle for Moscow" I suppose we are talking Operation Barbarossa. I also suppose fighting will concentrate around the lynch pin of Smolensk with the Luftwaffe facing off against the GIAP of the VVS. The G stands for Guard - meaning they are elite, they were the best Russian pilots in the best available aircraft, proberbly YAK's and maybe some MIGG's.... So not really just more land units but actually a very interesting scenaireo. Also wasn't moving land war what what multiplayer players were asking for?!


We can have all the bells and whistles you want but with out the basic online stability its a single player game. I am not alone on this issue and I am sure some more from MP will add to this soon.

You can hold your breath on those. If it won't be in the game, it won't be in the sequel... at least not for me.

For the record, or for anyone interested, it's VVS which comes from the Russian Военно-Воздушные Силы which is transliterated to Voenno-Voszdushnye Sily.

Soviet fighter regiments were given the label IAP, from Истребителныий Авиационный Полк or Istrebitelnyi Aviatsionnyi Polk. Regiments distinguishing themselves in combat through great valor or success were given a new designation as a "Guards" regiment, and labelled GIAP/GvIAP from Гвардеский Истребительный Авиационныи Полк or Gvardeski Istrebitelnyi Aviatsionnyi Polk. Being designated a Guards regiment was a very high honour indeed.

Apologies to Russian members about my spelling; my Russian isn't great.

I for one will be seriously disappointed if the two are not merged installs, but I'll admit, I'll buy it anyway. One of the first things I thought when I booted up CloD was oh my God, imagine how much fun this will be once more planes are available (I'm not much of a Spit guy)! With every plane feeling so different I'm looking forward to seeing how new additions will behave. I quite like the Russian crates (especially the mig-3, although I haven't the foggiest clue why haha), and I would love to get my hands on a centerline 20mm for the 109 without fussing with all that convergance mess. ;)

Having said that though, I think it's absolutely terrible both in a business sense and in a customer service sense to not give CloD all the features that were promised. If it's simply a matter of a patch coming out for CloD at the same time BoM is released then that's all fine and dandy, but if those who choose not to buy the sequel/add-on/whatever you want to be anal about calling it can't get all the features that were supposed to be in the game in the first place, well that's just not right and I expect betetr from a team that relies so heavily on its relationship with its customers.

As far as the launcher crash you misunderstood Luthier's answer, he said what I said. The "overall feature" is the new gfx engine in which the launcher.exe bug is "simply not present". As far as the Battle of Moscow, it was code named Operation Typhoon by the German army. It was concentrated in the Moscow district, West from Moscow. Barbarossa was the blitz invasion of Russia, few months before.

cheers,
Insuber

There's a world of difference in forcing EA to give an already complete product to forcing 1C to finish all that was slated for Cliffs of Dover.

Yea sorry I was typing from memory and I dont care much for the Russians :-P

However it is fixed.... I just see everyone pushing for dynamic weather and FM's/DM's... If we cant multiplay for more than 30 mins or so we might as well not play at all...

Thats a shame, I just thought as there was no battle for Moscow because the German advance fell 30km(?) short it would really be about the advance before hand... A Smolensk map would have made a great campaign map... Bf109 vs Yak 1's, I16's and Miggs...

Thanks for the update. I guess the positive people will see it as positive and vice versa for the negative. Oh well.

This bit made me laugh:

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.

An excellent answer. Nearly wet myself.

What exactly is missing that was promised? Actually promised and not just discussed. And again, what possible good do you actually see it doing other than forcing the premature end of sims from Luthier and 1C or are you actually that short sighted that you think they have a fully working sim at the office just waiting for somebody to take legal action against them before release?

Which of those do we not have?

I'm not 'bashing' anyone, just curious as to what good you actually think it would do to create a further financial burden on a company that is in a niche market and has obviously already had issues.

Well BlackSix, if you're still reading posts this far down the thread you'll have a taste of what Luthier had to put up with. Guys are speculating, some are complaining and then they begin to argue about their speculations and complaints as thought they are fact. Then they blame 1C for the speculations and fights they have created themselves. Welcome to the banana forum.

Thank you for the information, it is what it is. It doesn't meet all our hopes but two direct questions may answer many speculations and complaints.

You say you don't know if the next release will be "compatible with CoD". A more direct question which I don't think people have asked clearly is:

"Will it be possible for BoM to be merged with CoD?" (Like we did in IL-2).

"If so, will all the new core improvements work for CoD maps and aircraft?"

Yaaa for updates !!!! :):) hope the squeal adds Americana and Russian planes.

I noticed sir you didn't add sound wise, VERY clever.. for with the radio broken not being able to do/give radio commands to wing men and the abhorrent sounds that came with the game is a deal breaker.
Hmmm my wingmen is badly damaged ill send him home......Ooops no i cant, you guess the reason why? I prefer the SP side i dont play MP and the radio thing IS a DEAL BREAKER for me pure and simple. We all have opinions and that is mine :)

But i thank the OP for his post. news is better than no news and i hope he keeps it up.

Regards

First of all you would have to have a case..

Which there isn't, since CoD contains everything that is advertised

And by advertised I mean everything listed in hard cover adds, official Internet sites (1C/UBI), and the side of the box..

And for those who may be a little confused.. Something Oleg talked about doing two or three years ago in an online interview does NOT count as advertisement official or otherwise.

Perfect example being 'dynamic weather' Oleg said in an interview a good year to year and a half before CoD was release that CoD would have dynamic weather. Prior to release 1C said they were not able to get dynamic weather in. And just to be crystal clear, 1C nor UBI stated dynamic weather was included in CoD

Thus no case can be made, thus no class action lawsuit

Its that simple

Dano..

Don't bother.. They will never answer..

Why?

Because any attempt at providing an answer will only prove the fact that there is nothing missing that was advertised.

And don't even bother to try and understand why they would want to promote such a myth.. You probably wouldn't want to know anyway, surly some Freudian cigar thingie! ;)

All you can hope for is to put out the true information in the hopes that those new comers and old who are reading this thread will realize that they never provided an answer

At which point they will realize 1C did not rip them off and thus not get upset over a myth

Having people pissed off over a myth does not do them or the progress of this sim any good

So just keep the truth out there in opostion to the myths..

Just don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from the myth makers! ;)

Its highly unlikely that you will have to pay for the Battle for Moscow to get any new features like dynamic weather. It would probably be added as a patch to COD, although most people will probably buy Battle for Moscow and any new features will be added to COD, when they do a merged install. Personally I don't have that much interest in the Eastern front but will quite happily buy it to support further theaters, like the Med.

Thankyou for the update BlackSix. Your efforts are much appreciated.

However, I have to say that the response to requests for documentation on the FMB, triggers, switches & scripting is unsatisfactory. It's been 9+ months since the game was released with no (zero, nada, zip, nil) fmb documetation & to recieve the response " People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose." simply beggers belief :(

IMO, the game will not mature until the community can get actively involved in enhancing the game, for this they need documentation & the SDK's. That way, the community can develop certain game enhancements while the Dev's continue to improve the core of the game.

I just looked at the on-line COD server list , which makes very disappointing viewing. It does not bode well for the game's future. Just 12 on-line game servers, 11 of them empty & one with just 10 players only on a weekend (Friday night/Saturday). :(:(

You might even get many of those features before Battle of Moscow because they will probably use COD to beta test them. There were never any promises about the size of the map., or most everything else for that matter. All they did was keep us informed over the years on the features they were trying to build into COD. Some features even those we don't even know about yet will also be delayed until the sim is further optimized or next generation systems are powerfull enough to handle them with palyable framerates.

Yes, got to say that I don't understand why the dev team isn't making it easier for the community to improve the game with them. The servers at the moment are depressing as salvo says.

While it's sad to see some of the features get pushed on to the sequel, I think some of the problems may have been eliminated by looking before you leap.

Is dynamic weather really putting a damper on your fun? I can understand the FPS/memory leak issues but they are working on a patch for the current game in that regard.

I bought this game last month and already logged 63 hours on it. If you did the math, I spent roughly $2.62 per hour of fun. Thats cheaper than a coffee in my eyes. To me that=worth my money. I can understand everyone wants the bells and whistles but once this game's memory leaks/FPS issues are fixed you should be happy with what you have.

All this is a function of the sim being unfinished. When the sim is finished then they can produce the documentation. You can't document something until your sure how it will end up. Same with On-line play, although its very playable online for people with decent clean systems, its not for othere with weaker systems. The sim still needs optimization. Off-line the sim isn't very good for anything but furballs. When the sim is finished and documentation complete, it will take off, until then a considerable amount of patience is required.

Yes we can throw the development under the bus for the constant unrelenting delays, but then what. (zero, nada, zip, nil) for the next ten, twenty years until someone else trys to build something this complicated. The almost limitless money pit of Microsoft along with everyone else gave up long ago.

It's rather telling ... I mean rewriting the gfx engine and the sound engine (and perhaps the physics engine, too?) means that they're essentially doing a new engine from scratch. So apparently something has gone thoroughly FUBAR during development of the current/previous one. Not to mention that there was a change in management, a whole new bunch of team members and an increase of employees to boot.

It is, indeed, not satisfactory that key features are missing - a real campaign system, the promised weather stuff, documentation ... But then rewriting a game engine is never easy and quick. Right now we've paid for an unfinished game engine ... and MG will have to deliver quite a lot to regain the lost faith of the customers with the sequel. I don't expect anything ground-breaking until the new title. :(

Guys relax,

This is most likely just going to be like the IL2 series with sequels (updates) being able to be merged into the Cliffs of Dover install, just how Pacific Fighters worked.

Yawwwnnn , aw gawd anyone got any good news.:rolleyes:

If theres even a hint that to get the features i was supposed to get when i paid for clod, i have to pay again because they only get added in BoM, 1C can go suck it. That would be a blatent held to ransom over features already paid for.
Glad to see some still have confidence that it wouldnt be done like that though. Me, im not sure what to expect.

It seems that you don't understand.

You've got everything what was printed on the box, though not faultless.

Missing features, which will not be fixed for the new il2, exist only in your imagination.

I am a bit surprised at comments such as "you have gotten all that is listed on the box so what are you complaining about"?

I am not complaining, it's just that I bought a product in a box but it got badly treated in the mail and quite many parts are broken and I would like them to be fixed/replaced within a reasonable time so that I may enjoy the product I bought. That is not complaining... that is just beeing a concerned consumer/customer.

if it got broken in the mail then it's the postmans fault, is it impossible for you to wait just like the rest of us while they fix the broken product?

the most ridiculous is the fact that if you read the response...tyou have no info. latere...no now...for sequel... i think if the list of question was come back blank...it was the same.

Luthier need a verry good teaching of communication.

and what about the patch? it coming soon? in one week? one month? don't care the time but info...

i don't understand that here...in the english official forum (english is universal language) no info...... only for russian.... then they just have to sell BOB in russia and wait to sell us!!!!

we give our money then now we are unusefull?!

sorry to be so aggressive but more time is passing and more i'm out of patience with Luthier.

the only positive thing here...is the good work of black six who try to help us to get info....

I hope that BoB/Clod will be fixed.What about us in the UK that WANTED to fly over our own land for once.Personally i have little interest as such in the battle for Moscow or the Pacific.

hurray, Christmas came early this year. thx for the update.

Many, many I, me and myself people in this forum!
Thank you 1c, Luthier et conc for posting and working.

Viking

This seems like some kind of Animal Farm affair. In a few months we'll be told that Oleg was a mythical person, whose soul motive was to disrupt the progress of the sim. Any information posted by said person was just false. :rolleyes:

Obviously I'm joking, but you forcing people to believe your take on the game is ridiculous.

The truth is this: a lot of people, on this forum, bought the game with Oleg's 'promises' ringing in their ears. They seemed more tangible than a game that was as bare as the inital release. It didn't seem credible that a game in development for that length of time would be in the state it was. Yes, we got what was on the box, but we should have been told that a) to run the game like the preview videos, it would have to be run at 1/8 speed and sped up, and b) that the features Oleg had listed, posted videos of, shown screenshots of, were not to be included in the inital release.

Oleg was very very specific about not promising anything as I remember.


But I too got my expectations very high.


Like so many things in life, if you don't match your expectations with real world you will have an endless streak of disappointments top deal with.


But if it's so horrible why not cur your losses at the 50$ or so that you spent. walk away and give the money to the competion instead.

(Ok you wont get a refund, but then again the money some people spent on beer consumed in front of a computer screen whining about CoD will not be refunded either.)


Or better still:

put out your own, much better, product on the market and steal their source of income

That would show them :-)

[QUOTE=philip.ed;368831]This seems like some kind of Animal Farm affair. In a few months we'll be told that Oleg was a mythical person, whose soul motive was to disrupt the progress of the sim. Any information posted by said person was just false. :rolleyes:

He he superb!this is priceless Phil:)

Thanks: hmm, adjusting the aircraft characteristics for game play - that explains the FUBAR RAF aircraft FMs! (e.g. performance obtained with 100 octane fuel not modeled on the core RAF aircraft)

Best wishes & better luck with your Battle of Moscow "sim"!

I'd rather have a working game than a compatible one.
If the new one works you can throw away Clod and wait for a channel map, which would make you end up with the same result.

No, the patch will be released as soon as they get it all working.

Also, concerning the sequel, I'm CERTAIN that Luthier mentioned in a response months ago that it would work both as a standalone game OR a merged install for those already running COD. (with the implicit conclusion that, as before in the il-2 series, newly developed or unlocked elements of the game engine would be usable in both titles)

The problem with this pov is that there really isn't space for much information on the box. :) Most of the people on this forum will have been following closely the regular dev weekly updates over the preceding year+ which went into great detail about exactly the features that would be in the game (or were expected to be in the game)

It is just being really disingenuous for some people to insist that everything that was expected was included at release. I bet even Luthier would not attempt to take that position. I really don't know why certain folks here have such sensitivity to any implied criticism of the game that they are reduced to such distortions.

For the record, before Aces or someone else jumps in with the usual response, I'm not one of the compulsive knockers of this game (ask someone like Tree about my defense of the game in the run-up to release). I just can't have the woolly dishonesty and distortions of those who refuse to recognise any problems.

Because it's you Titus, I'm adding this to my sig :D

:twisted:

+1

it was an analogy....

What with all the font options aval these days I don't see listing 'dynamic weather' on the box being an issue.. Had it been included

And lets not forget the advertisements posted at official 1C/UBI web site, where space is not an issue, take note there that in both cases we received everything that was advertised.

The problem with this pov is that it is a loose loose situation for game makers..

So poor 1C.. Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't

Agreed 100%

Just to be crystal, I think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was ever mentioned over the past six years of CoD development to make its way into the game, but I don't think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was advertised on the box and official web site to be included at release. Problem is a lot of people can not distinguish between the two

The worst part about these 'myths' is that they cloud the real issues with the game. There are plenty of problems with CoD for people to be disappointed with, tossing in myths for people to get more upset about does no one any good.

Agreed 100%

Those people who can not recognize the real problems from the myth problems are a big problem IMHO. They put so much att and effort into the myths that some of the real problems go unnoticed.. Than there is the way the 1C team must view these sorts of people.. I can only imagine that when a member from 1C reads a post that starts off complain about a 'myth' the 1C member probably stops reading the post right then and there.. Which means if that post did include some info on a real problem later in the post it will be missed by the 1C member who stop reading it at first site of the myth

Just got back from my latest vacation some mix up over what is truth and what is abusive apparently :confused:
The update isn't really an update though is it? It's more of a 'we are throwing all our resources into BOM and you beta testers will have to wait until we throw you another old bone' kinda thing. Thanks for this BS anyway.

everybody knows that all feature predicted during the devellopement may not be in the release version (because of time and be implemented later or maybe cancelled because of ressources)

but in the case of IL2 Cliffs of dover... we don't even have what we had with the old il2 when the first episode is coming out.

IA order, different weather....stability....ability to get out of his plane on ground... miror....

the fact is that they had a lot and a lot of work to do...and the minimum is to put all r'essources on BOB before doing a sequel!

we are really not in the time of first il2 where we had new plane free and lot of free patch who add feature...before buyable addons.

Everybody knows?

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying that all the people who are saying we were lied to and ripped off because of a missing feature that Oleg may have mentioned once or twice over the past 6+ years of CoD dev are lying?

Huh, becaues up to now I was just giving them the benifit of the doubt that they didn't know or didn't understand

Just to be clear, I am not saying there are no issues with CoD. All I am saying is we should focus our efforts on real issues not myths

Bug are to be expected with any new software.. That is to say it is unrealistic to expect no bugs

We could bail out, but not get out and walk around. To me, not being able to bail out while sitting on the ground during taxi is a none issue

Depends.. I for one am looking forward to the sequel, just as I looked forward to the half dozen or so IL-2 sequels that came out over the past 10 years.. Where the support for the previous version stopped and all efforts were put into the current version

That is the problem with giving away stuff for free.. People start to expect you to give stuff away for free.. I think 1C should do as RoF does and charge $ for each new plane they provide.. Than that expectaion would go away

what?

huffing glue much? where does it say any of what you assume?
not the impression i get to be honest, the patch will fix/rework the engine and improve frame rate and appearance (getting this not just from the update post but another by devs). then battle of moscow will be an add-on/sequel that will add features like dynamic weather.
what?
oh you optimist iamnotdavid
what, me eating a handful of bhut jolokias and crying like a little girl as my digestive system ignites, or flying off the edge of french and then onto steppes? ;) nah, i meant like online dogfight servers, where a map ends and the next one loads you into a different theatre - think skies of valor or similar, where you can have an evening flying spitfire mkvb, zero a6m5 and then la5 (or emils, hellcats and antons) across the various map and plane sets.
i do like ilya's sense of humour
lol whut?
i find i have less interest for the battle of britain than other theatres, it's somewhat limited in scope, in that there isn't really the same mix of mission profiles as you get in, say, the pacific, africa or eastern theatres. or maybe i'm thinking like that because channel flying is the only thing on the menu, and you'd get tired of fillet steak if it was all you ate. having the variety of planesets and maps across an evenings gaming will be excellent.

The Battle of Moscow will be BOB without the channel. Essentially, the plane set will be early war trainers, with a timble full of fuel, flying short, limited in scope missions over bland uninspiring landscape, with inadequate ammunition. From my perspective this is dissapointing.However, it appears the sim in its present state may only be capable of the simple early war scanirios.

I agree to some extent. The developers bank account and the publishers are probably pushing the developers to do another paid sequel as soon as possible. Then they will have more time and money to flesh out the missing or unworking features. Of course a few of the missing and unworking features should be working by the time the Battle for Moscow comes out. This scenario will probably evolve the same way with each added theater. Overtime average computers will be more powerfull allowing for larger theaters, and more advanced features. This has been a long hard road for the developer, and I don't see it getting much easier until the game engine is more refined and capable.

I hope any improvements are implimented for CLOD too..

Make way for the multi quotes.....again

This is a given. All theaters use the same game engine and features, the only thing that changes are maps.

Bingo!

It's too bad that some people here are too young or were not around to remember how 1C handled IL-2

Over IL-2's 10+ years we received dozens of free updates that not only fixed bugs but added new planes and maps

And included several sequels that we paid for. Where each sequel not only added new planes, maps, features, but it also included all the resources (planes, maps, ect) from the previous versions.. An all in one package that resulted in maps from all around the world and some 500+ planes to fly

Had these people only been old enough to experience all this I think they would not be so worried/upset by the news that 1C is working on a sequel.

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.


In the Battle of Moscow,it will be interesting to see how historically accurate the , unreliable, underpowered, overheating to the point of combustion, oil spewing Yaks and LaGG's are modeled. Including the the yellow windscreen and canopy "feature".

I hope the Developers " discuss with some members of the community" the next theater . I know they certainly do not owe us this courtesy but it could generate some additional interest, at present this appears to be waning.

COD has infinately better damage models( compared toIL-2 1946), ballistics appear to be historically accurate and the aircraft models are stunning. However, I think it will be awhile before the complexities of for example the Pacific theater can be " simulated" within this engine.
Weather and clouds would vastly improve the current state of COD,hopefully soon.

I agree, hopefully the development will survive this very rough start to accomplish all thats possible. The Battle of Britain scenario was a great place to start, but probably wasn't as big a seller in Russia as the Battle for Moscow would have been. The release of the Battle for Moscow should put the development in a much more stable financial situation that will make what we all want from the sim more likely. Many people are not going to be happy, but you have to look at the big picture, especially on a project as complex, and time consuming as this one. Never mind having to rewrite basic features. I've never seen a project have so many setbacks, but understand how it can happen.

I agree, I've never understood how the development was going to add all the features they've talked about on todays computers. Nevermind trying to do this on much larger maps, but if they survive, things will only get better.

Hmmm....new patch ?
some of you are expecting new patch ? for BoB obsolete version ?
If the game engine code was fuked up and needs rewritting of engine
code I strongly believe the new game engine will be released with the
new BoM fixing BoB older version at the same time .
If it is true about game engine code rewritting and who knows what that
exactly means that I can't believe in my right mind this will be done in
" two weeks " .:lol:
It might make more sense for developer to scratch BoB update and get it
right again with new game engine for BoM release forcing you to get BoM
in order to update BoB :mrgreen: ( conspiracy theory )
No matter how I look at it after so many years of waiting I feel I got
screwed anyway even if they fix everything tomorrow.
As sad as it might sound this is what I think is happening and I hope I am
wrong !

S! HG

Simple maths

The more it looks like real world the more things you will find that are different.

When it starts to look almost real, the number of differences are nearing infinity and so also the potential things to complain about.


The problem a lot of people have is not with the game, it is that they are getting older an don´t have the imagination they had a few years back.

I think I remember a time when just playing with a toy plane was
"totally immersive"

Part of the discontent from the consumer of COD is a significant percentage play primarily off line. Understandable, with the major renovation of code and sound etc. not much has been done from release date to present to improve this function. Heres hoping 1c will stand the test of time.

I have seriously doubt beacuse 1C wasn't able to made correctly performance and flight models for only a few BOB planes. They all have serious issues. So i really dont expect too much reality from Battle of Moscow planes.

:cool:

sig fame at last!
do you not like the Mighty Wall of Text?

NO:!:

Have to agree, what's with the pulling apart and analysing of a persons post... its beyond ridiculous and can completely change the whole meaning of a posters paragraph.

Question 2, 6 and 11 should not be lower priority
it's not just cosmetic to be killed by aircraft when we sank or aircraft landed with the cockpit in fire...

and lights is cosmetic? :shock:
how do a night flight without wing lights???

rotfl!

my wall is bigger than your wall! ;)

For what it's worth I agree on the DM choices being made.

There is realism, and then there is 'sensationalism!' The latter is what game developers create to sell more games to kids (wow factor). FPS games for example, how many shots does it take to kill someone 'realistically'.

Planes don't fly apart because they exceed VNE on a single occasion, not unless it has a fault anyway. This kind of damage is more accumulative than instantaneous. Any high amount of G that would instantly break a plane up would likely kill the pilot first anyway.

Realism doesn't traditionally sell games/sims, lets hope they have a big enough market to stick to this hard line. In the end it's always about the money for a commercial enterprise to survive.

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

for the sequel
for the sequel
for the sequel
...

:evil:

i hope the feature in the sequel will be backward compatible with cliff of dover ( less buying the sequel), i bought the collector 70€, and the feature will for the sequel?!?

for the open radiator :
if you start flight with plane whose begin flying, you should hurry up to open your radiators ;) i think this question is for this case, having a normal radiator opening with airstart aircraft ( like the gear up, the engin started... ;) )

When I read Chivas post..

I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That the new CoD graphics enigne is bringing the current crop (read average) PC and video card to its knees (read poor FPS)

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2

When it originally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics enigne was bringing the current crop (read average) of PCs and video cards at that time to thier knees also

But some 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The point being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaining about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequels.

Not some blanket statement that PC hardware advancements solves all developer problems

Yes this is a correct assessment if they create a stable platform to build from. Also what I meant was that even though newer and better hardware will help games perform better/contain more advanced features it doesn't make it any less of a gargantuan task for developers to push out stable and well performing software. I think for smaller developers like MG, it is crucial for focus instead of trying to create a jack of all trades that really won't be good at anything. What I think is that MG are on the right track now, it seems as if they have narrowed down their priorities. It's all in my mind of course but that's how I perceive it. :D

I upgraded my highend systems a number of times during the life of the original IL-2 and will probably do the same with the new series. Technology makes a huge difference and I never once had to complain about blue screens, freezes, stuttering, fps, in IL-2 or COD on High settings. BUT your right it never guarantees a good game.

I also agree that MG may have tried to achieve to much, but you have to remember he wasn't designing a game engine for now, but one that could easily upgraded for many years. One of the reasons he divided the game engine in modules.

Unfortunately the game engine is so complex, and for many reasons has taken far too long to build. Once it is complete, then the developer can be more focused on which features and what time frame they would like to introduce these features.

I understand Luthier's point that the g stress discussion is often inconclusive and tends to degenerate, but it should not be the excuse to do nothing. I believe that g stress damage is under modeled in CloD, and this gives undue advantages in some situations, namely to 109's strafing Hawkinge ;-).
It is true that in general the frame damage is cumulative, and in the current gameplay you "create" a brand new plane at every flight, thus "repairing" any previous airframe damage.
But in some cases the Vne or g damages are immediate and traumatic and lead to the loss of vital parts, such as ailerons and elevators, or even wings. I have not yet experienced one single damage of this kind in CloD, after 150+ h in the 109 and 50+ in red planes, sometimes with deep and long dives, very hard pullouts and all, apart from one single time on a Hurricane (I lost an aileron after a VERY deep dive).
And apart from hard pullouts after a sharp dive, instant damages can arise from normal pullouts followed by a roll or turn, or hard maneuvers on a full loaded plane (fuel+bombs). Have someone seen them yet?

To avoid discussions on this thread I will open another one, but as a starter you may want to read this thread, and in particular the US Navy case studies about the "G Hogs", at the bottom of page 1.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/pol...ire-22553.html

PS: the amount of "banned" people in this ww2aircraft forum thread gives you an idea about the touchiness of this subject ... and the bad temper of combat flight simmers ... :-D


Cheers,
Insuber

i was wondering this myself, as i have yet to loose a part of my plane only through g forces.(+700 hours of flying Emils)
but i introduced a friend of mine to clod, and we were both in a 109.i lead the flight, and after some minutes, he was eager to shoot something, so he decided to give a small burst at me.i noticed it and climbed away,and came back on his high six, and shot a really short load on his left wing.nothing on his plane seemed to be damaged.then he made a hard turn left at about 400kph, and suddenly his wing broke off.that was the first and only time i saw something like that.

+1 so true... I remember being "immersed" in Microsoft sopwith camel addition to a very early version of flight simulator. I played for hours on a IMB PC Junior ~1983 with a keyboard and thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread... Can't understand the people that complain...

Really nice.

But I won't buy any sequel/addon/Payware-Patch unless the basic game I already payed for is fixed.

it's because they like complaining...I'm sure one of them will be along soon complaining about your criticism of them....I hope you are familiar with the term 'fanboi' because they throw that one around a hell of alot, it's also something to do with them having to spend a few bucks on a game and now their children will have to starve for a year.

Yeah they sometimes found a IL2-COD fan in the 1C / IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover forum :rolleyes:

The world is doomed !! :grin:

LMAO nice one bongo :D

Me too!

WOW!

Now that takes me back! I was station in Germany in 1984 when my buddy bought a Comador 64.. At first I thought he was a nerd.. Enh, who needs a computer! Than he firedup that wire fram sopwith camel game.. I don't know how many hours we played that sitting in the barracks.. But it was alot! Huddled around the little screen with that key board and german beer.. Hmm maybe it was the beer? ;)

Sadly it is human nature to do so.. I only wish they would complain about real issues over the myth issues

Oh SNAP!

Kind of reminds me of the guy who had a couple of thousands of dollars invested in his rims and tires on a car that was only worth $500 while his kids ran around with no shoes on.. Just never figured those guys played flights sims too! ;)

Wait ! Do you mean that I can't hve shiny rims and oversized tires on my 109 for now ? !!

Tht's a mod that I wld hve used, Yo!

Yo Yo Yo.. player don't diss the bling bling! ;)

Too many "sequel" words IMHO.

I understand that if I want a quite finished Clod, I have to buy Clod2.

It will be nice if, before releasing any kind of sequel, Clod will be finished: it is a matter of respect for those that buy Clod months ago, considering the the actual status of the game. Anyway, I'm sure that Clod2 will be on market before completing Clod.

To be honest, only a fanboy can actually think to buy Clod2: oh, maybe I will buy it, as I bought Clod even if review were awful... but my stupidity - perhaps - is not endless...

That is the whole point.. IL-2 was NEVER FINISHED!

1C kept it alive for 10+ years by providing free updates and paid for updates (sequal)

Thus I wouldn't expect them to change thier track record with CoD..

As a mater of fact I am couting on them not changing thier track record with CoD! ;)

c'mon, It is clear that no one pretend 100 flyable planes, 50 campaigns and so on for Clod.. but actually Clod is an approximative game considering each aspect of the game, so it will be nice if before talking of the sequel some significant (and definitive) improvements will be release. It is a matter of good taste...

Not sure I follow ya?

But know this, the original IL-2 was a Russian front only game.. And the focus was on ground attack, hence the IL-2! As a mater of fact, IL-2 was one of the first flight sims to focus on ground attack, prior to that it was all air to air, but I digress.. The point is each patch and sequal added more to IL-2

Enh.. its a matter of the FACT that flight sims are a niche market IMHO..

We either work with the developers and get what we want in time.. Or we demand something and stand the chance that we get nothing..

Take a look at SH5! Those developers left everyone hanging and no amount of beyaching changed that, as a mater of fact it is MHO that the amount of beyaching only confirmed it demise

In summary.. If I was spending $500 bucks on a flight sim instead of the $50 bucks I do spend, than I think all the whining would be justified by all.. But when you consider you can spend $50 in less than a few hours at the local pub it really puts it into perspective.. At least it does for me!

Long story short, if spending $50 bucks on a game is actually factoring into your 'budget' than I think it would be well advised that those types find another hobby! Something a little more affordable.. Like checkers! One time investment on a board and your good to go until the big dirt nap!

What is more stupid :

-Talk about the Moscu theater where the modelers, once finished his work in BoB, are started working while the programers fix the game´s core.

-Go to a game forum to call the fans of the game Fanboys and stupids for buy, play and talk about their precious game, and wait improvements by the way.

+to Bongodriver for the prediction. :)

The graphics are being rewritten, the sounds been rewritten, the AI, the physics, its all been rewritten because its broken old outdated code that doesn't work very well.
CLOD is toast.
Why else would Luthier say all the features that were supposed to be in CLOD will now only be available in the sequel?

The development team are a joke IMO. The whole development of CLOD from start to now has been a joke. 7 years in development? ...a joke. Olegs vanishing act on day 1 of release?... a joke. the epilepsy filter...a joke.
Almost a year after release and CLOD still has many many bugs, problems and missing features that they have given up and moved on to a sequel, im willing to bet BOM will be a stand alone and not be able to be merged with CLOD because they will have binned it.

I found more hilarius your post than all the "jokes" described :rolleyes:

Clearly your not a programer..

Because if you were you would understand that upgrading the graphics and audio engines does not automaticaly delete all the..

3D external plane models
3D cockpit models
3D map models
FM code
DM code
Network code
etc.. etc.. etc..

All of which can be reused..

That stuff is the bulk of the sim

Not the eye-candy!

CoD would NOT be the first game to upgrad its graphics engine

Almost EVERY feature of CLOD is broken or bugged or missing.
FM
DM
Weather
Radio commands
Ground handling
CEM
Track recorder
Sound
Map features
No CO-OPs
Radar
Single player Campaigns
Memory leaks
Exe crashes

This is after 7 years of development, almost a year after release and 4 patches.

Yes, most flightsims are like this....give me a break Ace, il have what ever your smoking.

Edit...i forgot... no FSAA and a UI that still looks like its been made in 1995

I know somethings that will not be in the sequal - the programmers....


Bwahahahahah.:-P

At last somebody else who like me cannot see the 'Emperors new clothes', to be fair I never saw them during the development either, and certainly I saw through all the BS that Oleg and Luthier were spouting.


To Quote Johnny Rotten "Ever feel like you've been cheated" !!


All you other muppets who think this is all positive deserve to be ripped off in future, enough for me.

De ja vu anyone... :)

That is an easy claim to toss out..

But much harder to prove..

As a mater of FACT I know that if you made an atemp to provide proof on each of those items you would find, and maybe even learn, that most if not all of your statements fall into the category of 'personal', as in your opinion.

Take DM for example.. I challenge you to FIRST make a clear statement, than provide proof to support your statement. After a few minutes I think you will realize you have nothing to support your statement.

For example.. Lets assume that you said.. The elevator of the Bf109 should not become in-op after X amount of .303 hits

Now show us your real world data, and our structural analysis to support this claim along with your modeling of the .303 rounds

See?

Not so easy is it, thus, your statements that such and such is broken or bugged or missing has very little merit upon closer inspection.. Granted I am sure the gloom'n'doom band wagon will disagree with me and hold you up as some sort of messiah, but for those based in reality, they will see your claims as I see them.

As your personal opinion, not fact

No one takes you seriously Ace, your a joke.

OK DM...ive shot 109s and been flying 109s where the fuel tank has exploded and then the 109 has carried on flying while on fire and it has not affected the flight performance at all.
I would say that is a DM bug.