Nothing is bad on the server and no missions ban or block anyone from playing. That would be petty

Ahh thanks for clearing that up. ;)

Yeah I just have to be a bigger person and ignore the broken record ranting and skip their posts and read on.

It's what I've been doing too ;)

Aircraft that can fly with no tail empennage or with no wings is the best damage model you've ever seen in 29 years of Sims?

Wow, you must have been playing some really bad sims.

Who said that?:grin:

I think CloD does fine in depicting damage, but in most cases fails miserably in actually modeling damage or its effects.

This is sad, considering that damage modeling is supposed to be a key strength of CloD.

What version of the sim is it happening in? Is it the damage model that is bugged or the visual representation?

Could it fall into the same category as the aircraft flying with their wheels down? Or the 109 that explode in a fireball and keep on going? The flight model is OK but the graphics are wrong.

Did that aircraft with parts missing recieve the message about loosing the part. Or did the part just get damaged?

What ever it is, hopefully it will get fixed.

Hopefully is a word being used a lot in here just lately. :(

Thanks for the information. Have a nice weekend and take all time you need to complete this awesome sim. Great work and just ignore the Clod-whiners!

I think they stopped working on Clod because the engine is broke. They figure to put all effort into fixing the game engine, with limited resources.

before Luthier's post Resources were divided into, CLOD,Game Engine, BOM.

Now they've decided to finalize Clod, and bet heavily on sebulba, er i mean bet everything on game engine and bom. they've taken the resources that CLOD is using and putting it into the game engine, and if they're not on game engine detail, they're on BOM duty.

That way the game engine code is working (this is a theory of course) and they can just drop the BOM details and then test, but the bugs will not be game breaking ones we've had with CLOD, it'll be minor ones . . . (since the engine is basically solid)

And that's why they say the CLOD patches will come with the new game, they'll just take what works with BOM and swap out the detail stuffs (maps n planes etc) for CLOD over the working game engine to have a BOM quality level of CLOD.

There are only really two sides to this. Good VS Evil .



Good: hopes the next will be something awesome and working, and the devs learned from their "mistakes."

Evil: they'll just use the lack of ww 2 sims to rope people out of hard earned cash, show a working demo, but that is only what will work, they'll lie and say its out in next 2 weeks but we won't see a game for 10 years and when it does come out they will deliver another beta max . . .

What I fail to understand is that we all know the game engine is poor, yet they want to use it for the sequel, if they can fix it for the sequel then why not release that in a patch for CLOD standalone, to me its quite obvious that Luthier is saying if you want CLOD fixed you have to buy our sequel.

I was reading it as, engine changes will be introduced to clod in a patch. But for actual gameplay enhancements and features of substance, please buy our sequel.

I think we are into another grey area with all this. My original understanding was that the game engine was being reworked over the last year and tested in the various beta patches that have been released.

The final Steam version of this patch then (RC coming soon!?) would give us the new game engine for COD/BOM and so provide much improved performance. No further Battle of Britain specific content would then be developed for COD.

The developers would continue to develop features such as weather, AA, clouds, fix tree collision, etc that would be introduced in the sequel but would be backwards compatible with COD - so purchase of the sequel would then give us access to these features in our COD missions too.

I see a few problems with this reading though - their continued struggle to master the various issues in the last three beta patches and get a finalised Steam patch shows continuing underlying problems. I suspect that the upcoming Steam patch will NOT therefore represent the completion of the new engine, but that work will continue in the future.

The fact that AA will not be available in the next patch surely supports the conclusion that further work will be needed on the engine in future. Similarly for the tree collision and possibly dynamic weather?

In short it's messy.

they're evil. they want our money!

On Luthier's Questions.

With the continued complete radio silence on this I'm starting to think the unthinkable - maybe they've decided if they don't mention it again we'll gradually forget about it?

That is, we won't be getting the answers at all.

Even a month ago I wouldn't have believed this. Now, I don't rule anything out - even some of Tree's wilder conspiracy theories are starting to look plausible. ;)

Like others here I also wasn't impressed by B6's vanishing act all last week, only to reappear on Saturday with the excuse that he couldn't tell us anything because it was the weekend. A little transparent that one. :rolleyes:

Bussiness as usual
 

I think With Respect some people have forgotten IL2,Pacific fighters and 1946.
What i see here is bussiness as usual.
The Sequal will load over Clod(so weve been Told),same as allways.

It seem its pessimists Vs Optimists.
I play Offline ATM,Are all these comlpaints directed at the Online Game???
I have no problem with this game,Except for the radio commands falling on deaf ears.

I for one am looking forward to the next Sequal(just a shame its not the European theatre of opperations or Middle east maybe).
Maybe on the next sequal?
Stll I wait with bated breath,until then I will play Clod occasionally Between plays of Rise of Flight.:rolleyes:

Its just the same stuff that has been going on for the last 19 months and more, seriously this sim has been the worst i have ever seen in all my gaming life for every aspect of producing a flight sim or any piece of software for that matter.
Everything for pre-release PR, how the launch was handled, delays on patches, buggy patches, beta or alpha patches, community management, websites, everything has been a poorly mismanaged disaster.

The latest shot in the foot from Luthier, is just a perfect example of how to balls up a simple chance to create some goodwill within this community and build some bridges, but nope its just another feck up to add to the long list of feck ups.

None of this should surprise anyone anymore, its just what we expect from this sim.

I feel sorry for B6 and prob most of the programing team to working for such a poorly managed, hopeless leadership.

Ffs... can people stop with that one. Since when weren't we in a massive global recession? It's never a good time.

There's one good thing about this sorry situation
 

I can run MSFSX maxed-out on my CLOD rig.

Awesome! :)

And I can rnu X-Plane + PilotEdge, nothing to do with FS, just an arcade game ;)

Joke appart.

i think that the average guy goggles a couple of critics of the famous review sites and is guided by that.

http://www.qmku.info/0.jpghttp://www.qmku.info/7.jpghttp://www.qmku.info/8.jpghttp://www.qmku.info/9.jpghttp://www.ymeu.info/test5.jpg

your getting exhausted from the waiting and are falling under the spell of the whiners, be aware its a fatal contagious disease if you let it develop :)

lets look at some of what we do know
- CoD was a disaster because it was a forced premature release 1 yr to early
- the initial scramble in the first 6 months to try and plug the holes and patch it didnt work to make it playable (other then for people who have a monster PC) or improve completion of content. some bug fixes were provided, but many bugs remained.
- 1c/luthier then decided to rewrite the gfx engine from scratch and by doing so had to decide to largely abandon work on fixing CoD bugs or add features (this was bluntly stated months ago, yet people here keeping choosing not to accept this). obviously fixing the gfx engine was the most important issue for CoD, so it was in fact fixing CoD but was going to cause a MAJOR delay in time before it could be completed, but had the advantage of addressing the main issue for making BoM a success, so we cant blame him for making that hard choice (imposed by the bean counters). personally i see this as problematic for the reputation of il2-1C, and a big comprehensive final patch is badly needed to recover some of their reputation and prevent the bad reviews from not being revised later on as patches were released. this initial release of a "bad CoD" however provided them with enough funds to continue (rather then shut down the product series completely, so however counter intuitive it seems releasing it like that was actually good news odd as it may sound)
- from then on 1/2 their programing team then worked exclusively on BoM as the next release (planes, game object, scenery) while the other half focused on the complete rebuild of the gfx engine and game engine
- then for a long period CoD patches were non existent, communication ground to a halt (till B6 recently appeared), customer speculation mounted in the information vacuum. frustration increased in the forum and bad reviews online increased, but there is/was simply no manpower or resources to address CoD problems, no matter the volume of complaints.
- august 2012 the first good performance patch was released, indicating the work to date from the gfx engine rebuilt the previous 12 months
- september 2012 luthier confirms that there will only be one further bug fixing patch together with the further improved gfx engine work. after that BoM will contain any further fixes and can then be installed over CoD. luthier also indicates that the continuation of the whole SoW series will depend on the success of BoM, eg if these sales are NOT good within the first 6 months and they generate positive reviews to recoup their high standing in the sim market (which was going to be opened to 3e party designers of planes and scenery etc, remember ?), then they might have to close shop completely. this is something many people here fail to grasp !

meanwhile the little forum'itis in residence here keep running around in circles chasing their own tails by asking, demanding, screaming to fix this and that, and throwing insults around that they "want it now and deserve it now" and that luthier should talk to them NOW and is accountable to them personally. when luthier or B6 do appear they are subject to abuse and disrespect, who would stay around and try and have a normal conversation under those conditions ? and is anybody here providing them with the means to put more of their limited resources into fixing CoD, err no ! it is what it is, CoD was a forced release that has largely been abandoned, we were told as much over 9 months ago

if you (and the others here) like flight sims ? want a chance to ever get a decent next gen ww2 flight sim ? then how about doing something positive to help it become true. that doesnt mean you cant be frustrated with the delays, but it would mean you actually help to do something to help it NOT FLOP ! in comparison, if you take somebody like Tree for ex, who was here for years constantly speculating on the negatives before it was even released because he felt hurt and slighted by the previous delays, then see how he rejoiced and was in glee when the release was problematic, and in a perverted sense of seeking attention he then continued to focus ONLY ON THE NEGATIVES since then. he even does so by giving new forum members deliberately misleading information and undermining their possible enjoyment of the sim. even now in a predictable fashion he would like nothing more then for BoM to fail as well, and even if it is reasonably good on release (yes, and with a few bugs omg the sky is falling) and this better product allows the series to continue to improve further in the next years, it is easy to predict tree will STILL do nothing but complain about it. is that what you want to become a part of ?

given that progress on CoD is very slow and BoM some time away in the future, rather then be frustrated with CoD's problems just see yourself as a highly trained beta tester who is perfectly placed to provide constructive feedback for a great ww2 flightsim in the making (the fixed CoD and BoM), and do something about helping it become true (while you go off and play other games you might find less frustrating). the most practical thing i can think of in that regard is for the community to get an organized and provide well documented list of major bugs and gameplay problems, and have them in priority of importance and focused on addressing both general gameplay issues (like lack of multiplayer co-op) as well as bug fixes (reversed controls, some gauges not working), FM errors in aircraft performance, specific DM errors, and important lack of features (inability to set specific FoV's for monitor size for ex). and no, a user run bug tracking website and a few long technical threads on some frustrating bugs for CoD is not enough in that regard, we cant rely or depend on luthier and their tech's to go trawling thru those and pick out a few snippets of wisdom. there is only going to be ONE more chance to get some badly needed fixes and (small) new features in CoD, if we want this to be as good as possible we need to help present this information in an orderly and systematic fashion to luthier (because his lack of time doesnt allow him to be as thorough as we would like, and the current "bug report" thread in this forum is a major jumbled cluster of bugs/errors/missing-features that sets no indication of priority or significance) )

so what is your choice, the blue pill or the red pill ? life will never be the same after (choose between hammering nails in the coffin of CoD and sabotage the development of BoM, or help create a fixed CoD and a decent BoM). :)

I think a lot of us grasp this concept just fine. I just think most of us don't care any more. Right now, we don't have a working sim and a vaporware sequel. If they go out of business, we'll still have a broken sim and no sequel. Status quo.

If they go out of business it's their own fault. It's not the community's responsibility to keep them afloat financially. It's MG's responsibility to deliver a product that is worth paying for, and to keep themselves afloat. So far, they have failed miserably to do that. The abysmal state of CoD has already used up all MG's good will, and if the sequel isn't stellar then I won't be purchasing.

You're acting like if MG goes under then WW2 flight sims will end forever. This is demonstrably false. DCS could release a 190-D to fight against their P-51D and I'd wager 70% of the community would be happy with that.

Clod/BoB was originally planned for release in 2007, after missing it's 2006 deadline. It certainly wasn't released a year early by any stretch of the truth.

those that dont care shouldnt be here exacerbating the problem.

and your point is ? basically all events in the future have always a degree of uncertainty with them, but then without planing and working towards it none would ever exist or be created. being here to complain about the past (which they already stated is not being addressed) is pointless, being here to complain about the future is just irrational. for those who just operate on a reactive emotional level it is expressed as constant whining and moaning, for those operating on a more rational constructive approach its a matter of trying to see what can be done to improve the odds in it being improved and fixed (yes, sadly that will be slowly, another cause for possible frustration)

yeps, but you can either increase or decrease those odds. by only focusing on the negative and constant whining (not you personally) people just increase the chances of failure. and that last bit can make all the difference in gradually letting the sim series recover, or making it more likely to fail (again not you personally, but in general by those purely focusing on the negatives)


whatever you have paid so far just allowed them to continue, if you are so dissatisfied with the brand then move on and cut your losses because nothing will happen to reverse that. and if you dont want to buy BoM at release, dont, just wait 6 months for the reviews to come out and the first patches to be delivered, and then make up your mind. that is quite a different response then some of the people who deliberately come here to undermine its further development

your logic is confusing.
on the one hand you are willfully disregarding anything positive about the current SoW series (of which you currently own a beta) which is a tangible product you already have in your hands and know the near future development line off (BoM), and which is something you can directly contribute to (no, not in money) by providing constructive feedback, but on the other hand you are willing to put all your eggs into the one basket hoping for some vague distant project that doesnt even exist (based on rumors) and that might or might not manifest ? to me that sequence of logic just does not compute. why not help support current development that you can, and hope for the best for all the others ? that would make more sense to me.

the DCS p51 project is the most promising, but just one look at the low rez ground textures and scenery content, and then comparing it to what already works in CoD (err the french scenery in partic :) ) shows how different the focus of those 2 products is. having a jet sim with poor low altitude scenery is one thing, but for ww2 prop sims this is very important (and is the big killer in gfx engine design)

comparing those, you have an existing one half of one product (CoD) versus pure speculation and wishful thinking of several other "potentials" (none of which are even in development). btw, even DCS makes people pay for their beta stage, so expect no instant finished product there any time soon :) all those here that long awaited the il2 sequel are frustrated, including me, but right now it boils down to what direction we want the scales to tip in. i know where tree stands in that regard, and i greatly prefer to make some small contributions to increase the likelihood of SoW becoming a reality, of which part of the outcome is directly in our hands.

and the relevance to you quoting old delays re "the current situation" is what exactly ?

with the team still under direction of Oleg up to the last 6 months before the forced release (eg up to sept 2010) they knew they had major problems in meeting that date and would need significantly more time (prob about 1 yr, by my guesstimate). most here will remember the anticipated release date of early 2011 (which was already a slipped date from what they intended to be a sept/oct 2010 release, indicated by the memorable oleg statement in 2009 of " by the anniversary of BoB 1000's would be playing it"). the money people put their foot down and forced a release, oleg left, and luthier took over to try and save the sinking ship. that series of events was the "forced premature release of an unfinished product" that would have been in much better shape if they had the extra year, which is not the same as some changed fluid timelines in a reasonably well funded long term project that kept postponing completion while they got ever more ambitious and kept adding in new elements

+1

Good post zapista ( http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=125 )

Many people here don't or won't grasp the reality of the current situation. Their frustration, like mine, is understandable but the continuous unrelenting complaining about the same things won't change anything and as you say will deter newcomers from the series. Everyone knows CoD was full of problems on release and everyone knows not everything will be fixed but it is still here and so are 1C MG.

I have just two concerns now:

1. The FMs for the CoD aircraft must be improved and that is all it will take to make CoD unique aspects acceptable because all core improvements will be overlaid by the sequel (they could also release some of those as a patch later on for 'CoD only' users). I'm not an off-line player and I understand the campaigns are lousy (?) but that is something the community can fix and would have to anyway once people got bored with the out-of-the-box campaigns.

2. You talked about a bug tracker, well as you also said we have one already but the devs don't read it. It was a fairly clean tracker with objective reporting mostly substantiated by in-game and historical evidence. It was mostly free of the usual ping-pong attacks and ego mongering (probably because certain people couldn't be bothered with real testing or providing such factual detail). It was prioritised by the community (how else would you prioritise it?) and for a while they took notice but BlackSix has confirmed that they don't look at it now, possibly because, as you say, their minds are really on BoM. And that is where my second concern comes in, they aren't listening to us except in patch bug threads which quickly deteriorate into the usual scumbag arguments and get abandoned by 1C and of course they are reluctant to say anything on a regular basis because they just get attacked and insulted all the time. In short, its the community's own damn fault and it isn't doing us any good.

Finally, I can't help noticing that some of the biggest critics don't even own the game or have abandoned it and no longer play it but still come here and use the forum as their own personal playground for creating mischief in something they are not really interested in. Except for their own entertainment or egotism.

It's all cumulative. We are talking about the same Battle of Britain game which was initially announced for 2006. Just because it still wasn't ready in 2011 does not mean it was released a year early. It means it was still incomplete when it was five years late.

lol, the truth is Zap, you were telling everyone and anyone that had valid concerns during development that Oleg would never let us down, you were the ultimate fanboi, I have no problem with that as such, but you were so blinkered you couldn't see past your love for Oleg, you couldn't see what was about to happen when others clearly could. Now you try to justify that by claiming its all the whiners fault, just face it Zap, you were duped by the one you love so much. Get over it and move on.

Also, I purchased the game when it was released knowing that it would run poorly, and I do have a super PC, so I helped the funding of the project by paying the full retail price, you however only recently got the game and from what I understand you didn't even pay for it. So if we are talking about true fans here then I fit that category far more than you do. So when BOM is released, put your money where your mouth is this time around and purchase the product upon release, this entitles you to be able to comment on it whether it is good or bad.

Agreed completely! Despite the current situation, I think the vast negativity on this forum doesn't always help things. I think even with it's many problems, I can still spend an evening with the game and have a good time!

exactly right !
- fixing the major FM errors and tuning relative performances for the competing aircraft (FM and DM) should be their nr-1 priority, regretfully i am not sure luthier sees or understand its importance, or that he know how bad things are in that department (but this has only become relevant since the sim became playable). as you correctly identified, that is the single most important core element to address right now and it will satisfy the more experienced sim fans who are focused on realism (which is what had been the il2 series's great strength, and it is that "niche market" which will then attract new users who initially start on lower "full real" settings)
- i also agree on the offline missions and campaigns, however frustrating that they are not present, the fan base can gradually add those (as they already started) while more important technical sim aspects are addressed

that bug tracker serves a very important unique purpose, all CoD users can go and report on bugs they found, or participate in discussing bugs found by others. the volume of comments and the number of people voting for a particular bug's importance is also usefull, BUT that system of reporting does not provide a comprehensive overview of bugs, gameplay issues, missing features, and the importance of fixing them in context of creating a more rounded finished product which "does most things well, but has a few residual problems to be fixed".

hence my suggestion of having some specific constructive discussion amongst ourselves (without constant disruption by whiners and trolls), where we organize a list of elements to be addressed (most of which we already know) and place them in their order of importance so it addresses the overall gameplay and use of the sim. this can then be repeatedly flagged to luthier as the most important issues the community wants addressed, and their inclusion and degree of fixing will be the measuring tool by which the "final CoD patch" can be rated (for ex the lack of tree collision models i do NOT put on a high priority, however much we would like it for thrill factors. i resolving this is a major drain on cpu/gpu performance at the moment, resolving it can be delayed till later in BoM)

- a good example of some real major problems:
- reversed controls in some aircraft and some gauges not correctly working (mostly easy fixes but very annoying)
- the problem of not being able to set a specific FoV for your monitor size (which was possible in il2 series, in increments of 5 degree's between 35 and 90), and when correctly set you were able to see in-game objects in their 1:1 correct sizes for the distances they were at (a MAJOR issue, and again has a relatively easy fix for them).
- another crucial one is the problem of distant LoD model visibility (we are currently flying around like myopic pilots, instead of having distant aircraft being able to be spotted/seen at the right RL distances). i suspect the LoD problem issue is relatively easy to fix now the new gfx engine is working, eg in the short term it might be sufficient to have the smaller LoD models provided with "visual enhancements" ("dog balls" paint schemes, or maybe bump mapping etc). this needs tome tuning and work by luthiers team, but is a critical issue
- the problem of allied fighter performance (as is well documented in kwaitek's thread etc), damage models on 109's etc
- lack of AI control and commands of friendly squad
- AI behavior in general is poor "out of the box", yet mission builders can set level of AI skill and then have much better results and more realistic behaviour, similar control of AI skill level should be made available in quick mission builder and for campaign missions or online server AI elements
- etc..

exactly, and hence my own concerns vocalized several times in the last few months. imho we need need to get better organized "as the consumers" and provide some of the groundwork to sift through bugs/omissions/errors that affect normal gameplay and use of the sim, and then present this (in this forum) as some sort of "consumer request list" of bug fixes in order of importance. failing that i think a few squeaky wheels will get oiled in the last patch, and some important (but relatively easy to fix) more important issues will be left out.

agreed. tolerating the level of abuse and constant disruption by a little cluster of perpetual whiners who are deliberately disruptive is very counter productive and undermines new players to get help and objective feedback. several of those trolls, and all their alt login aliases should be perm banned instead of the revolving door of temp bans that doesnt change their behavior.

Right on the money;)
No arguments there;)

Agreed
Since i started play it has improved no end.

Just wait for the sequal
 

We will see who out of the pessimists and optimists will be right.
Please dont,t damm them before relese.
I for one will be buying just as i allways have with the old seires and I NEVER regreted that.
Seems the Info about the (last Patch) has only fanned the flames of this argument.
I play Clod between 1946,Rise of flight,MSFSX and Skyrim.
Can,t wait for the Sequal.
Keep up the good work guys.;)

Guys, if I have to quote all the things said in the above posts I would fill all the space with quotes, start arguing and make this unreadable, so I'll sumarize saying that I can agree on 90% of what have being said, and said that give my description of what some of us feel / believe.

The following is my take and those of my surroundings, so it could be only an isolated case, I dont want to speak for everybody and I dont wanna to argue here or convince anyone, so please take it only as sample of a poll.

I don't think that this is a problem of whinner vs fanbois anymore, is not if Tree was right or Zapatista, that's history now. I don't think either if we have more or less degree than elsewhere of the average trolls that take the opportunity of this discussions to feed their needs and look for forum dogfights.

The problem IMO is that a new season has turned out and again many squadrons need something to fly. Simple as that. They need to maintain the interest, train people, make SOP's, fly unite and act as a team.

This is a lot of effort and the natural question is : what sim are we gonna use?

And then we have very few options if we talk only WWII, but the truth is that if for a moment, even if magically we all became the same sort of optimistic people, we know that at short term we are not going to have a stable base in COD. Even if we forget about offline play, meteo, everything, and we asked about PvP only, we lack a stable network code to think about that seriously.

We have no way to make competitions in COD, and the squadrons need competitions. Farber is asking (S to 5./JG27 for hosting the first SOW campaign) who's is gonna take the next online campaign and he's trying to stir up the hive a little, and? who is willing to take all this efforts without a stable base?

So, I don't know of your plans guys, but in my squad we are deciding what to do for this season, and the future with COD is not very bright to say the least. We have never come and will not come here to harass good B6 with "please give me info", but if they don't show up soon with solid proofs we are gonna -quietly - take another way to survive as a squad.

If this is not only happening with us -I guess not - the problem with COD is not about fanboys or whinners, will be that the people don't sim this sim, and that will be the end except for the casual players and the offline fellows.

I wish I could blame someone in the community, for example the much beloved Tree, for all of this, but seriously and sady I cannot; and I don't think he is / has doing any harm apart of being a bugger for some, and I will say now that I changed slowly my opinion him, because fact is that much of what he said was true, like it or not. This conclussion came from direct observation since COD's release, not that he waved a magic wand on me, that is ridiculous to think of.

Of course, much less influence has had in me the usual trollers.

So please don't focus this thing again in dialectical fights among ourselves and who was right and who wasn't.

They have clearly give us hints that they dont want community's active help. Despite that Community showed support. We overcame the lack of proper manuals, readme's and heck, even the most basic things. No problem, someone was there to help and fill the gaps with videos, tutorial, bugs documentations, scripts...much of the time only guessing things that were undocumented.

But this is not April 2011 anymore you now. Some of us have spent hundred, even thousands of hours flying COD, and one and a half year of active waiting now is moment to say, OK we gave you money, bought more copies for our friends, convinced them to learn it, gave you time, gave you beta test and showed love.

Now show what you have for me please, because there is only one responsable of this situation and only someone that can fix it. And that someone is you. But please, no more screenshoots or announcements please. Show me a plan that I can believe, give me a timeframe so squads can organize their inmediate future and stop bleeding pilots, and show me solid proofs of the WIP that we can trust to continue supporting this. They know it and I hope the show up soon. I hope-.

S!

S! amd +1, Lud. One of the best posts in this forum and I totally agree. If the next patch step or announcements are again proving no big improvement, I will give up taking time to look up here or in bugtracker, which is also awfully bleeding out, because no issue is handled or said to be handled.

I am personally very sad about that, but I still hope for 1C to come back on course and proof, that they are a developer with good ideas and the ability to technically master their projects.

Very good post, and i'm not talking about the bit about myself :razz:. IMHO if Luthier had adressed the coop/netcode problem from day one then we would have a much healthier community, my squad has all but folded because we could not practice or use the coop function, many have pleaded with Luthier to fix this but unfortunatley the requests fell on deaf ears. Squads need coop's and online wars with stats etc to become immersed, it worked so well with IL2FB that it was a massive oversight to not consider fixing this for CLOD. Its madness to see more people flying online in the old IL2FB than in what was supposed to be the next gen flight sim. I think Luthier has lost sight in what his customers want out of a flight simulation, and unless he starts listening pretty quick it will be then end for either him or his company IMHO.

lol....where is my post ? :( Already deleted ? Hell, that was fast !

You dont have Steam in your country? Buying the boxed version will not help you compare, Steam (that you dont have in your country) will automatically update you to the last official patch. It is however good to hear that you uninstalled your free copy given to you by your friend, I would imagine he must have bought it through STEAM for you, because like you stated you dont have a boxed copy and then you re-purchased it through STEAM later in order to support the development but this time paying yourself. Thats commendable, unbelievable but commendable.

Just in addition, as it was getting unreadable in the first days after luthiers well known post:

1.) Did he answer anything after the initial post?
2.) Are there any news on sukhoi.ru or any news here?

I haven't seen any news or feefback since then. And the Friday update became again an unregular event. So many are currently waiting for a big news and this will be necessary as priority topic for luthier and Co. to answer.

There have been some decent posts in this thread, don't ruin it with a slanging match please.If you have issues with each other, take it to PM.

Yes you are quite right, I apologise.

no it isnt :)
as you already know, the 2006 delay was related to the major staff changes in their team at the time, and Oleg then announcing they were rebuilding large parts of the BoB gfx and game engine from scratch. was that frustrating for us as eager fans, sure, but the 2006 gfx and game engine content has very little to do with the 2011 released product.

msg received !

'fair cop guv'nor, fair cop :)

Sorry, but that's too easy. Fact is we don't even have the most primitive of campaign systems, no ranks (even in the very primitive form as used in 1946) and therefor no medals or anything like that, either. For an average dolt like me, who could turn out some missions in 1946 for own consumption, this is far beyond my capabilities to actually design a campaign module like the Desastersoft guys did. And because I don't like their style of campaigns (achievement over storytelling) I'm bitten in the hinder again.
Secondly the abysmal AI and the utter lack of a working player-AI interaction is making offline gaming as a whole pretty pointless.

This is the reason why I uninstalled CloD, and will wait until the final patch before giving it another try.

IIRC, the guy (can't remember his name) who was working on a dynamic mission/campaign generator gave up working on it for this very reason.

CloD offline is worthless, and no one in the community can do anything about it.

Please forgive me if I don't understand the full scope of offline play, it has never appealed to me (I did try out the abysmal Hurricane 'career' for a few rounds). I assume that the future core fixes (in the sequel) will address the FMB and make it easier to create missions. I also assume that it will be possible to create dynamic campaigns either through a future 1C tool or one devised by the community as in IL-2 FB/'46. I really don't know how ranks and medals are generated in an offline campaign. I think your push for better campaign possibilities is related to the sequel as they have said they won't change what's in CoD but if the methods/techniques are core issues then hopefully they can be retrofitted into CoD even if it is necessary to buy the sequel.

I suppose my main concern for CoD is that the aircraft should be improved so that we can start to enjoy it more and that future core improvements will take CoD forward as well.

I have the "Wick vs Dundas" Campaign(s) by Desastersoft which I consider to be an excellent product -- it's what Cliffs of Dover SHOULD have shipped with as part of its own package. Unfortunately, and this is no fault of Desastersoft, the CoD AI and Comms really suck, as we all know, which greatly affects gameplay. If -- a BIG "if" -- the devs can fix these two glaring aspects, then offline play will be very good.

At present, I get value from offline play to practice my deflection shooting while making high speed passes on bomber formations. With the current beta (1.08 ) I've turned Engine Temperature Effects "off", so I can at least use realistic engine settings with the RAF fighters without blowing a head gasket, plus get more realistic flight performance. The downside, of course, is that you're no longer required to monitor or manage oil & glycol temps, even with Boost Cut Out Over Ride activated, which is unrealistic as well -- but at least you're flying! (So I do what the Real Pilots did, use BCOO sparingly and report same to the Chief Mechanic after I land. ;) ).

I tried the demo, and was unimpressed straight away that the spit they had in the missions was the Dunkirk 2 stage as opposed to CSP during BoB.

Is this different in the actual paid campaign, or is it still wrong?

Additionally you have to see, that flying offline is not what the game is made for. I think, that these single player related problems could be left alone. Building a community is not working with a crowd of single players. Also a further development is simply impossible, as there is no life or culture in it.

I have little knowledge what is right or wrong, nor do I know if they use the 2-stage-spit in the paid-version.

But if you can back up your facts with a valid source, they will listen to you and change it. Yes, their support is that good...

with the old il2 series there has always been many many more people offline than online.

so i think your comment is not accurate.

The 2 stage was changed after Dunkirk and before July, its documented all over the place.

yes i can back it up with valid sources.

With the current netcode, online is limited too.

No, you're right. Actually, I just flew that mission yesterday -- it is the 2-speed Mark 1 that's used. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong, but I believe that many Spitfire squadrons hadn't yet been retrofitted by May, 1940, with the CS props (DH or Rotol? Can't remember offhand which was field mounted and which was factory-installed later). IIRC Al Deere of 54 Squadron flew a Dunkirk mission in a Mark 1 with 2-speed prop (and got shot down and had to take a boat home with the evacuees).

Re-reading Alex Henshaw's "Sigh for a Merlin". Early on he mentions that the BoB pilots quickly discovered that the 2-speed prop pitch lever could be carefully manipulated at the center of travel to adjust the prop's pitch between Full Fine and Full Coarse -- which gave huge obvious advantages in performance if done skillfully. This was strictly variable pitch though, NOT Constant Speed. Neither DH nor Rolls Royce countenanced this, fearing serious damage to engine and/or prop governor -- but neither Company's reps were in the cockpit with the pilot at 20 angels with a 109 on their six! This aspect is not modelled in CoD, but IS modelled in A2A's Wings of Power 3 Spitfire 1a.

It is correct that during Dunkirk it should be 2 stage, but between the end of BoF and BoB DH fitted CSP's in the field, it was one of the few times that something was actually done quickly, and is well documented in both Alfred Prices "The Spitfire Story",
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-Sto.../dp/1854095145
and also in the even more encompassing work, Morgan and Shackladys "Spitfire the History" (a must read for all things Spitfire, look in the library or buy if you can)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-His.../dp/0946219486

Unlike the fitting of metal ailerons, which took and age for them to finally do from when it was recommended (during bob, fitted may ish 1941 iirc)

Prime example of a one-sided post of some online player. Excluding a large share of players simply because they don't join the mindless cluster online (which, in 90% of the cases, is merely a merry Take off - Furball - Die - Repeat) isn't helpful in building a community, either.
And what you said about "development" and "culture" ... I take that as an insult. In my experience the overwhelming majority of the online players have no interest in either as they merely want the same old, same old cluster with fighters. :roll:

Thanks for the info, Fruitbat.

I have Dr. Price's books in my collection, and have added Morgan and Shacklady's to my Amazon.ca "wishlist". At $215 CDN this is a serious book at a serious price! LOL But Christmas is coming...... :)

I know its bloody expensive, i keep ordering it out of the library!

on the plus side it is a bloody big book, with every single modification to spitfires that was done listed along with all serial numbers of spits and where they went squadron wise amongst other things.

Fruitbat wrote:

"Unlike the fitting of metal ailerons, which took and age for them to finally do from when it was recommended (during bob, fitted may ish 1941 iirc)"

A major issue, to be sure, which ISN'T modelled in CoD (I think Kurfurst issued a BugTracker report -- the Spitfire rolls 4x too fast in a 400 mph IAS dive IIRC. Of course, in CoD the Spit loses its ailerons at 420 IAS, so that kinda looks after that! LOL). I remember reading Douglas Bader "jumped the queue" and stepped on a lot of toes to make sure his planes got outfitted with metal ailerons first. Lovable he may not have been, but he did get results! LOL

best bit about that story, is that after Bader had been shot down, and Johnie Johnson was in charge, he got a visit from some angry official asking who had authorised it!

when you will finally understand and stop this nonsense that offline flying it is not important?!!

are you guys mathematics challenged and can not do some simple operations to see that the most of the game's revenue comes from units sold to people playing exclusively offline? if those have nothing to play, they won't pay for a sequel, and then you won't have your multiplayer playground neither.

and that without mentioning that actually you can not have a multiplayer persistent viable world without having the missing player numbers replaced by AIs..

use your head before saying something like this ever again!

With a steam based game it would be very simple to get stats of online and offline players by letting the game phoning home. Don't know why this isn't in use already.

cos some offline players run steam in offline mode 24/7 except for patching:rolleyes:

right. except for patching :rolleyes: then they're online.

That rang a bit of a bell with me as I've lost count of the times I've read Al Deere's book (Nine Lives). Here, from the book but abbreviated for space....

May 23rd 1940. A usual patrol at dawn, the 12th for the week, returned without incident and 74 Sqdn took over the patrol and were jumped. Their CO force landed near Calais Marck with engine trouble. Then, just before 9 a.m. Al Deere and Johnny Allen were asked to escort a Miles Master to Calais Marck for a rescue attempt. Long story short, Al Deere and Johnny Allen shot down 3 109s out of a group of about 12. Notably the 109s were turning, presumably at odds of 12:2 they thought they had an easy fight on their hands.

Al Deere drew two conclusions from this fight. One was that the 109s (presumably E's) were not able to outclimb or out-turn the Spitfire (we know of course that initial energy states could make the climb issue true and this was only his first combat). The other conclusion was that "The superior rate of climb was, however, due mostly to the type of Spitfire with which my Squadron was now equipped. Aircraft of 54 Squadron were fitted with the Rotol constant speed airscrew on which we had been doing trials when the fighting started." [presumably the German invasion of France] "Other Spitfires were, at that stage, using a two speed airscrew (ie. either fully fine ptich or fully coarse) which meant they lost performance in a sustained climb....."

Thanks, Klem. Ooops, he HAD the Rotol CSP after all. My bad! LOL

I have no excuse, I have the softcover version of "Nine Lives" on my shelf. I first read that book in 1963. Spotted the hardcover version in the tiny church library one Sunday -- seemed a far more interesting read to a nine-year-old boy than the usual tomes a church library would stock. Couldn't put it down, reread it a thousand times (guess I didn't retain much, though. ;) ). Back then I would've been flabbergasted with what a home PC and peripherals could do using a title like Cliffs of Dover forty-nine years later. Then again, so would the RAF! LOL

I wasn't "trolling".... I just wrote what I felt. I've been playing flight sims since Hellcats over the Pacific came out on the Mac, when I was like 9 years old. I've never encountered such.... Pooch screwery before, in any game. It's not like I WANT TO, or ENJOY saying these things.

The fastest way for them to make money is to fix COD. The code is all there. Maybe they should take out a loan for 250 grand and hire two programming wizards. Offer them each a one year contract for 125k salary. 10 hour work days, 6 days a week. That's what I would do. They need to go all in or call it quits.

One guy can fix bugs, the other guy can optimize the code. The smoke effects are pitiful!!! FPS drop is horrendous, that's why it's turned off for the most part. Rise of Flight has frickin heat blur mixed in with their smoke/fire effects. Come on.

B6, it's Friday tomorrow. Any chance of a patch? Or something?

If the patch or news is ready we'll publish them. But we never promised update every Friday.

Or any other Friday for that matter....

Just the questions Luthier said he would answer will do BS, 2 weeks later and he should have some very detailed and indepth answers, I am very much looking forward to them.

Not you, but Luthier did. Back in 2010 he told to give regularly friday updates again, after we suffered a long period without them.

Agree and it is very inconsistent...

Just one example....You can blow one bomber out of the sky, erupting in a fireball... and the next one in the same group will take thousands of rounds, becoming swiss cheese and fly on...

Well, I don't believe that anybody is "suffering".
We're well past that stage.
It's entertaining.
While we wait for Act II or is it a "stage left"?

This is just a brief intermission.

And the many?
Have all just stepped outside for a smoke.

Originally Posted by BlackSix "This is my fault. I should collect 5-10 old questions and send them to Ilya. But I made new threads and I collected over 200 questions. I don't know when he'll find time for this."

Honestly B6 if that's the best that can be done it's just opening this thread up to the harbingers of doom. Sadly I believe I have become one

You offered us after (MANY) months the chance to actual actually get answers to the many issues that have been raised. The community again was sparked into life! At-last, a chance to get some actual, proper input from the devs.

What do we get! No answers, too many questions!

Seriously?

The only issue is that this whole fiascoof disrespect for those who really love the IL2 series who again were lured into thinking that we we important to the devs, feel again that we have been lined up for a practical joke!

I can see Luthier rolling on the floor laughing "haha, they actually believed I was going to listen! Too funny! Put the questions in the bin, I have to finish my next practical joke and see who falls for that!"

The only reason the disrespect and disillusionment has swept this forum is from the totallack of interest and apathy apparent from 1c regarding those who actually care to post issues or bugs that need fixing only to hear that the bug tracking isn't even read!

But post your questions regarding the real issues and bugs and Luthier will ignore those too!

If anyone at 1c had bothered to visit these forums, react to the vast input that has been made, the community wouldn't have had to ask so many questions (that he can't be bothered to answer). They could have been answered over the last 18 months in something called a Friday update?

The total lack of disrespect and apathy on the part of 1C is something I don't believeI have encountered in years of visiting forums.

The main issue now is trust. We are told (well guess!) that BoM is the next greatest Sim, but why the hell do you expect us to believe that, when 1C can't even be trusted to answer genuine questions regarding software on which people have already spent money?

I don't know if 1C can gain the respect back, once bitten, twice shy!

I can only say as others have, we are all busy, we all have jobs or other things that encroach on our time, but we care about this product which is why we offer input and suggestions for making it better.

It's a shame that 1C don't appear to have the same passion for their product as we do and that can only mean they are not interested in anything but the money they get.

If Luthier makes an effort in his busy day to spend just 20 minutes on a Friday (even at home!) like we have done daily for many months then it would be a start, but what makes us think that he will be bothered after his last foray into the forum?

The only issue that has made negativityrage through these threads is the the lack of input after Luthier apparently showed he was interested in the community. The lack of answers has reinforced what many believed, that we'll only be of interest again when he has some more dodgy software to offer from the back of a car!

He needs to answer the questions that we took time to ask to at least start gaining some respect and credibility if he wants us to believein his commitment to us and our future investment in software he claims is fit for release!

Answers to questions please that were asked and we'll go from there.

Disillusioned, MP

sincerely...now we should tstop to speak about friday's update but Half year's update.....

And then it was locked.

Amazing isn't it, Codemasters released F1 2012 last week and there were complaints about certain things, amazingly they have released their second patch in three days.

Extract from something called a 'read me' (never heard of those, have you??)

''We are working on other issues you have reported via the forums, Facebook and Twitter and are working to fix them as quickly as possible. In the meantime, please note that we are still collecting feedback via our Technical Assistance forums and do encourage you to post your issues there being sure to include as much information as possible. ''


How's that for customer service??

Steady on Kristorf you'll be accused of being negative about the communication on these forums from the dev's

Please remember that those people had a very stable engine to poke their hands into.

Well it wasn't about someone being right or wrong, it was a clarification of the state of Squadrons regarding the CSP at the time of Dunkirk. I don't have the Desastersoft Dunkirk campaign but maybe they included at least one squadron with the CSP (no reply needed thanks).

MysticPuma....I suppose I differ only in that I have *always* been disillusioned with this game, it doesn't carry the bitterness of recent realisation or disappointment with comms. They have always been piss-poor, with mis-placed levity and silly, patronising white-washes and half-truths. And very little concrete improvement in key areas (for me).

To my mind the pre-release was a tangled botch, the intended game and creative silence on certain features combined to make things even more wretched, and the thing they gave birth to was then even worse than could have been imagined...so subsequent hope for improvement always looked unlikely.

That said, homing in on one person will just give the mods a reason to wield the whack-a-mole thread-hammer once again, and dilute the underlying message. But I realise it's also just a 'sod it, I don't care anymore' response - which is fair enough.

And it really is a sad state of affairs if the devs/BS use the general growing discontent as a justification for not replying.

I'm with Pudfark - it's all so far beyond farce now that you wonder how creative the next balls-up will be. Sad to say, we're usually not disappointed. If anywhere, that's where the admiration lies.

Don't be too harsh on them. They already know they screwed up big time and are totally unable to fix this. The poor game engine just won't let them fix anything that matters to us.

Let's hope they'll fix the flawed game engine with BoM and add most of our requests.

They cannot afford to relase another CoD, that's for sure. It's all or nothing for them right now. I have hope, but this time I wait for the reviews...;-)

Rgs,
FP

Bingo!

It's a bad day when you compare Codemasters community support to yours and you come up short. Maybe 1C should look into licensing the Ego engine for COD.


Let me answer for you Ace:

Bingo!

hmm . . .


comparisons . . . come on, gotta be little more fair . . .

Codemasters is a top British gaming company with 800 employees, that began in the 80's busting out games for commodores and amigas to today's PC and PS triple era.

Their games range from mmorpg's to action, FPS's, rpg's, sports, those restaurant style games etc . . . they have experience in making their sounds and music . . .

That's a hell of a resume

F1 series started in 09' and they've been improving it this year. They got the license when Sony didn't renew it . . . (remember Sony has its hand in Gran Turismo series another excellent driving sim)

F1 has had alot of history and there are more games on this series than plane types in all WW 2 sims in history.

F1 has a rich history and lots of features, codes to draw from. Also F1 from 2009, the data for the cars and racers, and everything is up to date. F1 2012 is rated 9's by IGN, and it its a simulation with a steep learning curve.

Plus as others said its a solid game engine. Plus F1 doesn't have to model as many physics properties as a WW2 sim ( such as damage from various sources, atmospheric weather, 3D planes etc).

With 800 ninjas coding, you can be sure of a solid game release. To put things into perspective, Blizzard has 4500 employees, while Infinity Ward (call of duty) has 100 . . .


Now compare this our situation. No 800 employees. An impressive gaming resume to be sure, but you have to remember flight sims are very complicated compared to other games. At least a good one that models almost every aspect of combat flying.

Like the F1 series, they had IL-2 1946 to draw from. That's impressive also.

But remember the heart and mind (Oleg) was taken out, and the soul (Luthier and his team) is left.

For some reason, the working game engine of the Oleg era Storm of War wasn't used or had to be modified for some reason and a broke one was put in place.

And then there was a major OS change for the PC (XP, then to vista / win 7). Codemasters has experience in entire hardware / software / os systems, not just an OS change.

They have much more to deal with than the world of F1. They have WW 2. Also the information they have to chase is 50+ years old, and not recent like the 2009 F1 and history of F1. There is much more complicated things in a flight sim than a racing sim.

they don't have tons of games to draw from, like popular F1 series.

And the game engine they are using is damaged goods. Codemasters has a working engine.


let's be fair, that isn't even a good comparison. First off the games are wildly different. Second, the companies have different philosophy, and history. 3rd, to the Clod devs after the set back they've been handed to them . . .we're lucky (and blessed) they've even came out with a game on the caliber as CLoD. 4th, the number of manpower is vastly different.

Look at the Football Americano team, the Saints. They were an impressive team last season. This season their head coach was taken out by the NFL, and they are the worst team . . . Even after a few games, they can't get their act together. This dev team had their head coach leave, and they aren't the worst. They've had a bad set back, but they know what they need to improve.





As for the trust issue . . . everyone falls on this. Remember Toyota had gained the trust of the world, but blew it when they tried to ol' coverup with the sticky gas pedal, and it was even more of a blow up when the domestic toyotas of the same model, year, type were found to be error free, but only their exports had the issue, and had to admit the practice that some Japanese companies favor domestic markets and make the best, while having a lesser model go out (but still quality) to the rest of the world.

Also lots of assumptions . .. usually lack of information causes the masses to fill in the blanks, shoot everyone likes a good speculation, heck sewing circles and rumors. There is even an entertainment industry based off of speculation on stars and popular people.

the devs maybe laughing at the craziness, but who knows if they are laughing at us.

I wouldn't be surprised thought. I dated a medical intern who worked in the ER, they'd joke about the patients, or the dying, and the dead. The families and those close would be aghast. But the medical personnel did that to keep sane. They saw and experience lots of things that would make the average person go nuts. The humor helped break up the tension, ease the stress.


the dev's don't have a passion for this. well maybe a possibility, call it later . . . but their dedication to getting the series back to its old days of glory even though its tanked from the start . . . its hard not to stick to something like without a slight belief or passion in what you are doing. Especially after several months.

the devs aren't ignoring bug posts, its been stated (several times) they have ways for us to let them know about bugs and issues . . .

granted though the devs are slow at answering questions or getting back to us. many people think its easy to answer questions. But remember companies that do get back to the fans / community often have a full time employee(S) dedicated to running the blogs, forums, twitter etc. And this is delicate, because answering a question will certainly be read the wrong way.

Also have to remember the east west thing, customer service may not be the best thing and they are learning. After all, remember when they didn't even have a rep or any updates about the game. At least now they get back to us every several weeks . . . that was better than before.

Take a look at here. Luthier and B6 have posted. Then not even a page later, someone posts information as gospel truth that is opposite of what the official original post is.

A strategical method is go for the end win. The devs know that if Bom is a working game, that will checkmate all the negative and bad blood of Clod and this botched first release of the new IL-2 series.

Rather than waste time dealing with us here and getting caught in speculation, they maybe just putting all resources into development. Luthier's post generated more questions than he answered. He's the lead guy, and I'd rather have him doing his work than taking 10+ minutes out of his day to answer questions that a year after a successful BOM release, no one won't really care to recall and won't really matter in the long run.

Because in the end, if they do turn this series around, most will forgive them.

^^^

Excellent post hiro, right in so many ways but to take RoF as an example they have an excellent way of disseminating information to the community, a similar small team (I`d guess) ,a similar audience, and they started with a heavily flawed project. So if they can approach us the purchaser with that approach why can`t these guys??. I actually think the game isn`t that bad, you can see it`ll get there given time and effort, but they really need to have a more amiable public face. A lot of the aggro on here isn`t so much down to the game it`s down to the communication, good communication is free bad communication cost money.

"As for the trust issue . . . everyone falls on this. Remember Toyota had gained the trust of the world, but blew it when they tried to ol' coverup with the sticky gas pedal, and it was even more of a blow up when the domestic toyotas of the same model, year, type were found to be error free, but only their exports had the issue, and had to admit the practice that some Japanese companies favor domestic markets and make the best, while having a lesser model go out (but still quality) to the rest of the world. "

That is not correct! The whole made up story about malfunctioning Toyotas was nothing less than a coup of the US auto industries delivered by the biased , owned!, US government. Toyota paid the fines but never admitted to the accusations simply because they were false. There never was anything wrong with Toyota!

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/nasalife/...ota-study.html

Just a short not @ hero:

GT5, F1, DIRT or any other of these games, also available for consiles are nice to play but nowhere near simulation. They call themselves racing sim, but they aren't. They are fun to drive and they could also be difficult and the speed in F1 is quite nice, but it simply isn't a real simulation.

I do not want to make these games look bad with this comment, because sometimes it could be better to go a bit more arcade to get an immersive game for everyone. And the fact, that these games also need training and learning is the best development, you can get. I like these racers, because they really need training, although they are a bit arcade. You find other genres, that you can simply play without a need of learning.

So I cannot say anything about the race genre, as all sorts of racers have its fun factor and difficulty levels. So it is a good history, but this is nearly the only genre, where all players like it near to reality. This genre is a healthy ones and you can see it in the quantity of playable games and also the quantity of new real sims in the horizon like project cars, rfactor2, gtr3, etc (although project cars could turn out to be not as reastic as they perhaps intended, it could chance to a better gt5, because of the low quantity of real racesim fans, taking part in this project; but we will see).

To optimize f1 with a functioning engine and with this amount of experts in coding games is realistic. But il2 is much more sim and the team is smaller and the mechanics behind it makes it difficult. You cannot say, that they are without faults. I think they also know it, but lets see the future. Another small sim developer shows, that a working engine is essential. As soon as they have it, we could really see, how fast they can react on community and how fast they can implement new features or new content. We will see! ;)

one obvious difference, the f1 2012 game (and the previous products in that line) were console games for xbox, playstation etc.. as well, and the pc version of that game brings in a relatively minor revenue element of the overall product being designed (but the overall funding is across all platforms). many of those console games can have 60 to 80 programers working on them, as compared to the 10 or 12 working with luthier/oleg's project. the revenue and budgets for those console games are huge, tens of millions of dollars more then for pc games. additionally, the il2 flightsim series and SoW/CoD/BoM series is a niche product in the pc market itself, so serves an even smaller customer base (compared to mainstream pc shoot'emup and driving games)

we might need an index and some headings, with subcategories, for your posts to make it readable :)

Regardless of the game type/company or platform (although it's on PC with all the problems of spec and compatability) my post was more
to show that Codemasters listened to identified problems and have done several things quickely that 1C fail to do on a regular basis.
They listened to what was being posted on forums
They answered and informed the most important aspect of the whole thing (the paying customer) of what was happening and
They addressed the issues by releasing the required patches (even if they may be interim) without going down the
road of claiming to have fixed/improved things by simply switching them off or dumbing down.
They also have not made countless promises that they have either no intention of answering or fixing.

1C/MG could look at this model and learn, or carry on with the Ostrich mentality of bury the head in the sand and hope all goes well.

Sorry but Codemaster had a seriously flawed product with the first F1 sim.
And they did not do much to rectify that.
I rember one patch and that was i, f1 2010 was a beta also just like cod now.

totally agreed one of the worse arcade games i ever bought

at least i KNOW BY EXPERIENCE maddox will give me in the future a working game

codemasters did one patch for f1 and forgot about us