Yeah, a Ki-gas primer and a wobble pump would come in very handy just now methinks.

I apologies for any confusion I caused with my poorly chosen words "Beta/RC", but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was the "Patch" was sent out to the community, not Steam, for further testing, and I was surprised when people got so uptight about finding bugs. They will fix the start procedure, and whatever bugs they can, and release another "Patch" for testing, or send it directly to Steam. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your point of view, the sim isn't finished yet, and will continue to evolve thru the life of the series.

I know BUT if we don't want to buy BOM we should at least have the sim we bought working.I
This should NOT be a option where you have to buy product B to get product A working ,that is called blackmail.

Sadly due to a lot of misinformation put out by some people there is this since of being ripped off, lied too, broken promises, or as you put it being blackmailed.

There is only one way to get past this false feeling to see the truth..

Sadly not too many people are up to the challenge..

THE CHALLENGE:

Step one of the challenge is to list all the so called broken promises..

Note for some this will be hard to do, because most of the poster only say 'broken promises' never actually listing any specific promise. For some they do this on purpose to keep the lie alive and whip up others into thinking there is a long list of broken promises, for most of the rest, they do this only because they got caught up in the lie that there is a long list of broken promises.

Step two is to provide a reference and/or link to the source of each so called promise, this step is key in that most of the so called broken promises where NOT promises at all! They were simply features that Oleg and others at 1C have talked about over the past 10+ years of some of the things they would like to do, or are trying to do at that point in the development of CoD. Another reason to find and post the link to the source of the promise is that over time what was actually said is very different from what is now being said and thus taking on a life of its own to mean something very different, seeing the original promise should clear this issue up. Than there is the whole opinion aspect of a feature in the game, take AI for one example, some consider the feature in CoD to be top notch and others consider the feature to be broken! Linking to the original promise of said feature will help those see how human expectations can not only far exceed what actually possible to do, but what was originally promised.

Only after completing these two steps will you begin to realize just how short the list is..

At which point should be able to get past this feeling of being ripped off, lied too, and or blackmailed into buying the sequel to get what you think you were promised in CoD.

In the mean time..

Take note of how many people will take issue with what I just said, and resort to attacking me personally over taking up the challenge..

Why?

Well because some here are very vested in the idea that there is a long list of broken promises, and anyone that tries to take this away from them will be attacked (kill the messenger).. The good news is all those that do only expose themselves and their true agendas

I must have missed where Trumper mentioned broken promises.

His concern was that CloD would only ever get fixed in the sequel.

S!

Well Aces as you have been around here since the original IL-2 and then when 2004 Oleg announced the Storm Of War aka Cliffs Of Dover, he did say MANY times that CoD will be the starting theatre on which new expansions will be merged on like in the successfull IL-2 series. But that seems to have been thrown out from the window as can be read from answers to community. Sequel is a standalone more or less, CoD a bargain bin product after last official patch. No big deal, but kiss goodbye to merged installs?

A release candidate is code that is considered to be in "final state" and is a candidate for release, hence the name.

A release candidate says "Here is what we want to release, is this okay?" and if nobody has a problem with it, they release it.

By that logic it's likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record of actually listening to the community.

The idea of merged is a little misleading..

Some think it means the sequel has to be installed over (merged) CoD to be able to use the maps and fly the planes from CoD..

But that may not be the case at all..

As we have seen with IL-2 over the past 10 years there as been several sequels, and most of them were 'stand alone' products

Where each one of those 'stand alone' contained all the maps and planes from the previous versions of IL-2, thus each 'stand alone' was in essence a 'merging'

So the way I see it there is only 3 possibilities here

1) The sequel installs over CoD and we can use all of the maps and planes of CoD.
2) The sequel is stand alone but contains all the maps and planes of CoD.
3) The sequel is stand alone but does NOT contain all the maps and planes of CoD.

I am fine with option 1 and 2, only option 3 would suck IMHO!!

option 3 would be a disaster, option 1 or 2 will lead to good future for 1c....

S!

Agreed. Option 3 would be suckamondolicious in extraordinary proportions.

If a developer releases a first person shooter, but never explicitly states that the guns will actually fire, does that mean they haven't broken any promises when none of the guns work?

Also, the movie that plays on Steam's store when looking at purchasing the game still has all the fancy graphical stuff that has been taken out of the game and, going by the readme of this final release candidate patch (and note that by calling it a release candidate there is NO POSSIBILITY that anything not mentioned in the readme will be added at this point - only things in the readme will be fixed if they're broken...HOPEFULLY) that's a pretty dishonest advertising movie since there will be no chance for anyone who gets the game to make it look like that.

There's a whole lot of mess here. I have no problem with anyone being vocal in 2949842 threads about a major game breaking problem if it means that we get it fixed before MG and 1C cut the cord on this game and don't look back.

Note the lack of listing any specific effect in the video that were removed.. and the implied dishonesty but no actual proof of it..

These are the sort of vague accusation I was referring to in my post..

That in essence provide no real information and are intended to prey upon peoples imaginations!

Alfred Hitchcock used this tactic in his movies..

As in don't be specific, don't show the knife entering the body..

Be vague, and just show the shadow of the knife on the wall..

Thus allowing the persons imagination to fill in the blanks (vagueness)..

Alfred knew each person would imagine the worst case stabbing and in turn scare the heck of of themselves!

Don't let the nay-sayers spook ya with this Hollywood tactic!

Demand the nay-sayers be specific!

They won't!

But demand it anyway in that it will just highlight how weak their arguments are and thus how short the list is!

I think that there is a misreading here of what Luthier means. I think you're looking at this question:

Quote:
Can the sequel be merged with COD like the original il2 series and if it can will we get to test features that will be appearing in the sequel I.e. Weather etc.
This question Ilya! Please confirm that the sequel will be able to be merged with our current game as in all previous IL2 releases.

Definitely not planning to release any sequel features as add-ons for Cliffs of Dover, sorry.

I think the main part of Luthier's response was about the possibility of sequel features being introduced into COD in further patches prior to the sequel release - which won't be happening.

This is not the same though as features from the sequel (eg weather) being usable in COD as part of a merged install. The whole thing is a bit needlessly confusing, but I understand it this way.

Surely this is confirmed by the following (from later on in the thread):

Quote:
I know you stated the next CloD patch will be the last, so that means any fixes, advances and such into the game engine that come from the sequel will not be translated at some time or another back into CloD? Will Clod be completely abandoned in whatever state the final patch leaves it with no hope small updates, etc?

Why would you think that? We’ve never done that before, and I’ve always stated that our plans remain the same. There were many issues in the original IL-2 in 2001. After a few updates to the original, Forgotten Battles was released and there were no more updates to the original Il-2. That doesn’t mean it was abandoned however! You can still play all of the original Il-2 content with 1946, all carried over and updated with the rest of the engine.

While I'm still the "wait and see" camp before I'll buy BoM, I seriously think people need to calm the f#$k down. As Chivas and other are trying to highlight, its not the final patch Illya was talking about.

While I agree the devs seemed to have gone backwards with this RC in terms of bringing back some old bugs (this is nothing new mind you ... remember the Pacific Fighters patches?), it is still an RC and when you look it from a development point of view, it's still a beta at the end of the day. If this RC patch is bogus, report it in the proper channels.

I think there's a few easy examples to give (I can't be bothered to trawl through the posts):

Recommended specs

I'll be back later to answer the questions

Developers diary

etc

Now of course in none of these declarations etc was the word "promise" mentioned, so you could probably say that no promises were broken at all. there is the legal definition of a promise though and as I couldn't be bothered to look through my reference books I found this:

A written or oral declaration given in exchange for something of value that binds the maker to do, or forbear from, a certain specific act and gives to the person to whom the declaration is made the right to expect and enforce performance or forbearance. An undertaking that something will or will not occur. It is a manifestation of intent to act, or refrain from acting, in a certain manner.

To me, taking money for a "working" game seems to be the biggest broken promise.

And as always, I kick myself because when you see the game in motion it can look stunningly beautiful and it has this amazing potential just out of reach. Sadly I cannot bring myself to believe there was any internal testing of this patch though.

Oh well.

Hood

Bingo!

Which is NOT to say there are none!

My only point in asking people to list them

Is that in doing so

They will realize just how short the list is!

Which in turn will keep thier imaginations from running wild! ;)

But of course, in common everyday language a promise doesn't need to have the word "promise" in the statement at all. Look at the synonyms for the word promise to see what I mean. My personal view is that if someone says they'll do something then that has the status of a promise even if it doesn't include that word in the declaration of intent.

And what is your fascination with a numbers game?

http://www.greatlakesfolkfest.net/gl...ngoplayers.jpg

Hood

Some should be lawyer or they already are... hard to believe they can ignore/can't see what game is playing on their screen...
Chapeau bas Monsieur AoA...

No thanks, this means that the sequel will have all CLoD BUGS!!!

This is OK, like IL-2 Forgothen Battles that have IL-2 (original) planes and maps, but
DONT install over this. A "new" game.

Sokol1

Agreed..

Sorry if you got the impression that I was saying the word 'promise' had to exist on the side of the box for each listed feature, on the 1C website, or in anything any 1C rep said..

My point is a simple one.. The list of so called broken promises is short.. But due to some people here using Alfred Hitchcock tactics the list 'feels' long.. It is not until each so called broken promises is listed will 'REALITY' take the place of 'IMAGINATION' at which point people will not feel as if they were lied to, taken advantage of, ripped off, etc..

Note the lack of listing any specific problem..

NOT ONE!

Just the typical vague assertion that there are many problems 'playing on their screen'

These are the sort of vague accusation I am talking about..

The kind that contain no real information and are intended to prey upon peoples imaginations!

Alfred Hitchcock used this tactic in his movies..

As in don't be specific, don't show the knife entering the body..

Be vague, and just show the shadow of the knife on the wall..

Thus allowing the persons imagination to fill in the blanks (vagueness)..

Alfred knew each person would imagine the worst case stabbing and in turn scare the heck of of themselves!

Don't let the nay-sayers spook ya with this Hollywood tactic!

Demand the nay-sayers be specific!

They won't!

But demand it anyway in that it will just highlight how weak their arguments are and thus how short the list is!

lol ! sorry no time to waste with you... but francky you are amazing ! keep on !
I may say : i love Cliffs (2000 hours playing till day one) but how far i love it, i may not sell my soul to evil in being dishonnest.

As expected.. When pressed they run like roaches when the light is turned on!

Before you go Stirwenn..

I have a new avatar for you! S!

Ace, you know I respect you, but you are a significant pain in the arse.

The truth is always a pain in the arse!

I am just the messenger! ;)

And you are the truth? Spare me please.

Did I say I was the truth?

Nope, so spare me please!

Oh Sod off.

Ah you poor thing.. Don't go away mad.. Just go away!

OK.

I seriously think you're actually a professional troll at this point, but I'll indulge you.

1. Cloud effects that are not possible to generate in game without using the now deactivated and instantly crashing weather system.

2. Cloud reflections on the water which were removed.

3. Fire and smoke effects which were removed.

4. Airframe reflection effects which were removed.

5. Sound effects for engines and guns which are non-existant in the game since day one.

6. The suggestion that you can take part in 128 player battles when in reality 60+ creates warping that makes the game nearly unplayable and certainly not enjoyable.

And this is just from the promo film on Steam. There's more from the description of the game:

Over 25 Aircrafts – English, German & Italian aircraft including the Spitfire, The Hurricane, and the Messerschmitt Bf-109. Every detail faithfully recreated.
Every detail faithfully recreated? Not by any religion I know. Also cleverly disingenuous in stating 25 aircraft implying you can fly them by then listing the obviously flyable ones.

Massive Multiplayer – Customizable modes allow for up to 128 players in huge ongoing battles or hop in deathmatch-style free-for-alls.
Here's that 128 thing again.

And just for the sake of something to think about. Every feature that was in the game in its initial release form is a sort of promise. That's the stuff they're saying is in their game. We didn't buy the game as a beta. We bought it as a finished product. Everything they've taken out since then and haven't managed to bring back in is a bit of a broken promise. You want us to start listing those one by one too Ace?

I'd like to add here that I like the game! I really do! I keep playing it, don't I? I think it's worth playing. But if you've got weeks and weeks and weeks between releasing patches, spend 20 bloody minutes to make sure all the aircraft start before you upload the damn thing. Hell, it's not like this isn't something they've had happen already! It's the FIRST thing you should check! How long did it take us to find it? And we don't even work the code.

Ouch AoA you have been zorroed , marked as you will lmao

:lol:

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the troll. I tip my hat. You are a braver man than me, he'll wear you down with his one liners and his truth.

*shudder*

:grin:

.
May I ask a stupid question (or it seem so);
What is the difference for a pilot in a single seater fighter to be in a battle with 50 planes and 128 planes?
I shall partly answer this but try to find more answers;
in a battle with 50 planes you have one on 50 chances to be a causality in a 128 aircrafts battle you have statistically less chances to be shoot down. It is why the "big wings" did less damage.

:evil::cool:

The difference is this senseispcc, on the huge BOB map if you fly realistically, 40 players means you will spend most of your time not seeing anything, unless you fly low quick sorties across the channel to meet the enemy flying the same way.

Which is what happens most of the time online.

Tbf Furbs that was a problem with the original il2 as well. A dogfight would start up high slowly descend with more fighters joining in. So it's more to do with pilots than the game as I have experienced this problem with every flight sim I have played.

True krupi, which is where CO-OPs come in...or dont with CLOD.

Agreed, coops are good fun.

I don't understand why some people can't see the benefits of a coop system.

The whole planning of the mission, following the route to the target. It's just not the same as on a server no matter how many targets you have or how well planned your sortie is, your guaranteed to run into a crazy lone wolf online while a coop is much more realistic and perfect for squad training.... It's a must for the next game.

It should be a must for the current game, especially on the map the whole game is supposed to be based on, the Channel

The answer to your question is that the game is sold as a Battle of Britain simulator. Take a look at Battle of Britain II: Wings of Victory and the historical battles in that and you'll see the sort of engagements people were hoping to find in this game.

Now I think of it, that might explain why they changed the name from Storm of War:Battle of Britain to Cliffs of Dover. Cliffs of Dover implies the Battle of Britain without actually promising it.

I've played co-ops in CLOD, but of course i works when you play with people you know or in a squad/intersquad framework. Of course the actual format makes it difficult to launch a "public co-op".
The the only difference is that you don't select your plane in a list of available planes like in Il-2.
You can plan your mission the same, then everyones selects the plane he choose on an airbase, spawns, groups with the others to take off to his assigned mission...same happens on the other side. I really don't see what is stopping people to do it in a squad environment :confused:

I have arranged a bombing run with guys on ATAG, that is nothing like a true il2 Coop... Buy 1946 and you will see what we are talking about!!!

I've been playing co-ops in Il-2 for years in a squad, so I know how they were.
I'm not talking about doing pseudo co-ops on a public server like ATAG, but doing co-op missions on a a password room you created for your mission via the in-game multiplayer interface with people you know/from your squad. That you can do with the game. You just need a bit more discipline that's it.

Now I agree that setting up co-op and waiting for random people to fill-in like it was done via Hyperlobby won't work, as you need to be sure that everyone will wait to spawn at the same time. Works in a squad or with trusted people, won't work if the mission is open to anyone, that I agree upon.

As if what you think about me has anything to do with the topic at hand..

But I understand how some can take it personal when long held beliefs are challenged!

And for future reference, the good news is, as an adult, I don't really care what anyone in a game forum thinks about me!

So you and yours can save some time in future posts by keeping your personal feelings to yourself!

This is not a good sign IMHO..

It indicates that you did not read and or understand the challenge..

In that the whole purpose of the challenge it to indulge yourself!

I have already taking the challenge, which is why I don't feel as if I have been lied to, ripped off, etc..

Based on this it is clear that you did not read the challenge.. Note that above you were barely able to complete Step 1, and totally missed Step 2..

That is to say, just repeating 'broken promises' that you have come to 'imagine' exist is not going to help you realize they do not exist..

You have to do both steps in the challenge!

Ok, lets see what you got here..

Now this is a little better!

And is something I can work with to help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality.

Lets take a look at each issue

1st) Every detail faithfully recreated.. First thing to note, you did not list ONE THING that you considered to NOT BE faithfully recreated, which makes it impossible for me to address your issues here.. Other than to point out you have resorted back to the Alfred Hitchcock scare tactics.

2nd) 25 Aircraft.. First thing to note, no where does it say there are 25 flyable aircraft! Just because you read that and got the impression that there were 25 flyable aircraft does not equate to a 'broken promise'. It is too bad that you never had the chance to fly IL-2 before buying CoD, or just about any other flight sim, in that you would have been well aware of the fact that most flight sims have un-flyable aircraft.

Sorry but your being a little vague here? So allow me to help you clarify your statement with a few questions

Q1) Are you saying CoD does not allow serves sizes of 128 people to join?

If so, I am 99% sure you are wrong! In that I have seen servers listing 128 player capabilities..

Or is this a continuation of your online experiences where 60+ players caused warping?

Assuming that is the case allow me address this for you.. In short it is not the games fault if the server hardware is not up to the task of 128 players, or that the server has the settings so low that they allow people with piss poor pings to join the server. Thus no promise broken here either!

What stuff?

In light of the fact that you did NOT LIST ONE feature (stuff) it makes it hard for me to try and help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality. And is just another example of the Alfred Hitchcock scare tactics

Agreed, but you have to understand that you would be hard pressed to find any modern game that is release bug free

Everything?

In light of the fact that you did NOT LIST ONE feature (stuff) it makes it hard for me to try and help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality. And is just another example of the Alfred Hitchcock scare tactics

If you want me to help you separate your imagination and/or unrealistic expectations from reality!

On that note I will say this, changing and or removing a feature does not necessarily equate to a broken promise! No more than adding a feature is a broken promise!

But until you can be more specific (less vague) I can not address this issue of your adequately

As so the many who are playing it day in and day out, both offline and on

Are you asking me?

If so, sorry, I left my crystal ball at home today thus there is no way for me to see what you are doing at this moment or in the near future! ;)

There are several ways to look at that.. One being negative, where you only focus on the negative, Two, the fact that they missed that tells me their focus is on 'other things'...

Now allow me to use the Alfred Hitchcock tactic here in reverse..

Where 'other things' can mean what ever it is to the reader..

If you think the FM sucks, than you can convince yourself that they were so busy with the FM that they forgot to check if the engine starts..
If you think the AI sucks, than you can convince yourself that they were so busy with the AI that they forgot to check if the engine starts..

Sadly most never stop to consider the positive side of Alfred Hitchcock tactic! ;)

+1

Wrong server Krupi. The only historical accuracy on ATAG is the map it's on, and even then they do not use actual place names or historically accurate squadron locations. There are other servers running historically accurate maps and are even suitable for lonewolf action because of the AI, (71st/ACG Combined, Storm of War Campaigns - you can fly with large groups (30+) of bombers with escorts on historical missions to correct locations and routes in those. Strangely though everyone just autopilots into ATAG even when it's rammed full to the point of warps and lag. It is good that there is a place to go when things are quieter but the game gets a dis-service because everyone is in there and nowhere else so everyone has a bad time. I don't want it to sound like I'm slagging ATAG, that's not what I'm saying, but they should cap their limit because the game just can't handle those numbers anyway right now.

Last night 6 squadrons of allied and axis just got together and just went elsewhere, we had a great time over Eastchurch at 14kft attacking 30+ escorted Dorniers on SOWC. Anyone else seeking this mission based action in groups flying together just PM me. Allied or Axis, we cater for all.

Simple question:

How can i start the Hurricanes? ;)

Wait for the gold release on Steam, that's what I am doing.

Will do the same! :)

You're amazing, buddy. Keep doing what you do.

I know what a Release Candidate is, I just chose the wrong words for testing the release candidate, I chose the phrase beta testing, which is a common phrase for testing software. When I should have just used Patch testing so people couldn't deflect the point I was trying to make.

Your logic "its likely there will not be any more fixes, given MG's track record" doesn't ring totally true. The development would have released the RC directly to Steam if it didn't consider they might have to make a few more fixes. I agree that the standalone COD future is nearing an end for economic reasons, but it could still have a very strong future, with years of improvements with the release of the Sequels, not to mention third party, and community mods.

Its interesting the conclusions the community makes.

MG track record for instance.

MG supports and builds a series to very good reviews for years, but struggles building the new game engine and somehow their track record is bad.

MG Patch testing.

MG releases patches to the community to help speed up the beta testing process. The community finds bugs and immediately assumes the MG aren't testing the patches or reading the community test results.

Engine start failed again.

MG makes improvements to the engine management feature, but introduce another bug that makes the Hurricane difficult to start again. Some in the community immediately assume its the same bug as last time, and roll their eyes in contempt.

Logic isn't one of our strong points.

Wilco!

So in summary..

Thus far..

NO ONE has been able to come up with one valid 'broken promise' (where valid = doing step 1 and step 2 of the challange)

Strange when you stop and consider how many references are made to 'broken promises' on a daliy bases in this forum..

You would think someone could provide one!

I mean if it was true.. And there were dozens upon dozens of 'broken promises' than it should be a simple mater to list at least one if not a half dozen

But I digress!

All in all thanks for proving my point! S!

+1

In the meantime, we just "observe and report" ;)

"Tell him what he's won Bob!"

The same faulty broken game as before he started his "promise" wasn't used campaign. I don't see why Ace gets so hung up on the word "promise". They showed videos of things used to entice people of features that "possibly" might be in the game.

The dev has admitted to everyone their disappointment with the game and apologized for it. No need for you to whitewash and try to cover for Luthier anymore Ace, that cat's out of the bag.

Chivas,
I don't think you should be too quick to denigrate the "community" in general terms of lacking logic.

Looking back over the posts on this thread, I find some well placed, erudite and very logical points or comments in general from all sides.

What I am seeing though, is the arguments being placed from two different perspectives. One perspective is that of a Beta tester. The other perspective is one of a client who has purchased a product.

Both perspectives have their valid points. However and regrettably, the process that 1C has chosen to improve on Cliffs and prepare for the next release, is to dump Beta versions into the community and expecting coordinated and factual results.

This would be similar IMHO, to having a community leader present a scenario to a town hall meeting. You surely will see a mix of logic, emotions, passions, variations, suggestions and outright insults ensue.

A solution that comes to mind eminates from managing customer expectations and implementing procedures in a more streamlined approach. To me, the solution is the process of formal inside and outside beta teams. I've had the good fortune in the past to be on the Falcon4 outside beta team and the Flanker outside beta team.

Flanker IMHO was the best because: Testers had to apply, give their credentials, be chosen and issued passwords and protected download opportunities. The Flanker Devs had beta test documents on their site to be accessed directly that had to be filled out accurately. They had version control. NDA's were signed. Text was issued detailing changes made to the previous version, problems to be specifically checked for the current one and other information. Testers could access a list of issues identified previously by testers with specifics so as not to report the same already identified issue. The inside team was an exclusive group of about 10 Beta testers with specific qualifications. (They were really in the outside world - not at the Devs location.) After they had first crack at the latest version and adjustments made, that corrected version was sent out to the outside team of about 30 or so testers for verification. After that go around several times, the patch or update was issued publicly.

The reward for being on the testing teams was: Too be a part of the development of a product that I and others passionately cared about; recognition with names of all the testers printed in the manual; a GREAT T-shirt entitled - "Flanker Testing Team" with a super imprint of the Flanker in flight. To me, that was enough.

So here we are arguing amongst ourselves with our passions about a sim we all care about while approaching the arguements from different perspectives. While you may consider yourself to be a beta tester for Cliffs, I and others at this time do not. Therefore, the perspective of what is being released to the community is very different indeed.

I would consider applying to be on the tester team if that option was made available by 1C. But as it is now, I'm just a paying customer. I think that: if we all took time to be aware of the mish-mash of opinion, our own perspectives and the source of the opinions in the community that is generated by what I consider a flawed Beta system it certainly would be better for all.

I respect the opinions that you and other's more inclined to be beta testers put out. I also urge you to understand that headings in the forum that are not within the beta testers report section should not be subject to a beta testers perspective but rather should be considered to be that of the general client base instead. To that end, they are not IMHO subject to the same criteria that you or a passionate beta tester would expect to be appropriate.

Our enthusiasm and passions in the forum world will naturally foment into what we are experiencing now. Unless you belong to a specic group ie., heart specialists, plumbers, farmers, quilters or . . . . qualified beta testers - and have the same credentials, education, training, language nuances, goals - then the discourse is disjointed, dysfunctional, non-productive and generally decays to the lowest common denominator . . . . . which is personal insults.

I think we are all better than this.

I am hung up on the word?

Don't confuse me repeating what you and yours say as an indicator or proof of me being hung up on a word

I am simply repeating what you and yours are saying on a daily bases..

As for luither admiting this or that..

Note I never said he didn't

My only point you and yours are missing is that there are not as many broken promises as you think there are

Hope that helps! S!

PS I noted that you didn't offer up an examples of a 'broke promise' either

I agree....people would have a valid argument for using a "Promise" for features listed on the BOX cover, or official release website, but there are few of those listed. The vast majority of the posts that proclaim broken promises in the forums were never made by the developer. The developer has stated that this is a WIP and features would be added as game and system resources allowed thru the life of the series.

The developer has just now made the sim playable with minimal features working, and it will be sometime before we see all the features working as we would hope. COD for obvious reasons hasn't been financially successful enough to support further work, but the good news is the investors still seem to be willing to support the series at least until the Sequels release.

The standalone COD is almost dead, but the Channel map should live on with "promised" feature improvements and additions by the devs and community through the life of the Sequels, "IF" the next Sequel is successful enough to help support further development. There is still a chance we will eventually see a much improved IL-2 1946 on the new game engine.

I assume you haven't or don't want to read the questions and answers by Luthier then,
" Have you seen how many times the same questions are asked, and if so
Why are they not being answered unambiguously, or a way that appears deceptive?
Why is there so much emphasis placed on the sequels process when most want CoD fixed?
Because we’re a business. Our goal is to make money. Fixing Cliffs of Dover does not bring in any money, and it has not pretty much from the start. Even if we spend another year working on nothing but Cliffs of Dover and release a super-mega-ultra update with co-op, blackjack, and hookers, how many copies do you honestly believe the game will sell?
Then the entire team can happily go and look for a new job, preferably in a third world country where it’ll be easier to hide from our investors".
Surely even your rose tinted glasses can see this.

Oh my...Ace just loves shooting from the hip on a daily basis. Just like he put his foot in his mouth at the beginning of this thread with OP...comical!

You keep saying "you and yours". I would challenge you to find a post where I said the dev broke a "promise"...but I can save you some time. I think it would be very hard to find a dev that actually used the word "promise" in the history of video game developement. But releasing a promo vid and showing videos of things that were meant to be in the game was "misleading".

Not that I don't mind being a victim of Ace's hip shooting...it's just getting old. He kind of reminds me of a ship still firing it's guns as it is sinking under the water. The devs admitted COD will not be fixed to even their expectations and is over and done. Kinda sad that Ace just doesn't let it go. It's probably evident since he doesn't post any cool screenshots, talk about interesting missions he flew, or lead by some sort of example by actually playing the game.....posting here is all he's got.

Wheuuu..

Thank you Chivas!

For a moment there I thought I said something wrong..

But based on the fact that you get it..

Tells me those who don't get it..

Just don't and won't or choose not to get it!

S!

Ace-of-Aces can you read this thread and add your name to the list. You just wind people up, maybe you get your kicks by doing this, but its is getting really tedious. You have your opinion, fair enough, but your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.

Please for the love of god wind your neck in.

I won't be responding to any response from you, this is just a sincere plea to you to stop being so antagonistic and turning every thread you enter into a tiresome squabble.

Please.

+1

I should point out that the only people getting upset are the ones that take is personal when their long held beliefs are challenged

Opinion?

Actually the fact that no one was able to provide ONE example of a broken promise should show that this is not an opinion

Which is not to say there are no broken promises!

Only that this inability shows there are no where near as many broken promises as some would have us belive!

Wind my neck?

Sorry, you lost me there

No worries!

As I noted in my post to Chivas

There is no need in continuing to try and show people something they are unwilling to see (closed minds remain closed)

So, I have no more to say on this, unless you and yours feel the need to comment on it further

But I will end it with this..

I called it from the get go! i.e.

Hate it when I am right! ;)

Please ... give it a rest already.

All this squabbling over minute details on who said what or what means what is getting really old.

At the end of day, is it really that important to be right or to have people bow to an opinion? Really?

Sometimes it feel like the Crusades in here.

Ok i take it back, i will respond.

Please look at my posting history and quote me once ever talking about broken promises or similar or any reference to these supposed held beliefs. I think you must be getting me confused with someone entirely different. :confused:

Ok, back to thread topic...sorry to be boring...what is best solution for starting RAF machines. Has way found to spawn warm? Can fmb be used to start warm?

The spit MK1a 100oct and Spit Mk 2a start correctly...

Poop. I love my Hurricane...it takes more hits before going down!

No need, In that my post was not directed and you and you alone.

As for the phrase 'broken promises' is interchangeable with other forum statements..

The phrase broken promises is just the one I see used the most, but feel free to replace it with any of the following..

For example, many here say they feel 'ripped off' or 'lied to' or 'cheated' etc.. etc.. its all the same

Colander over at ATAG is looking into getting aircraft to spawn warmed up at some airfields. As I understand it, it is proving to be difficult but he is still looking at ways to accomplish this.

The RAF aircraft that do not start unfortunately are broken in the release and the only solution to date is provided by ATAG with airstarts at Eastchurch on a couple of models.

Once the startup and mixture issues are resolved, including the more obvious graphic glitches corrected, I think that we will have a playable sim to carry us on until the sequel.

Me too! Especially the 100 oct.

This is one of the airstart aircraft at Eastchurch on one of the maps on the ATAG server.

I agree.. such terms are clearly childish. I have never posted any such views or comments. Hell $50 on a video game is pocket change... Just don't tarnish me with that crap. Stop bloody trolling.

Agreed 100%

If that is true, than please forgive me! In that I must have you confused with someone else!

Agreed 100%

See above!

As I told you before

I was done!

Can not help those whos minds are closed!

I have proved my point

No need to prove it over and over!

Nuff said! Unless you got more to say about it?

I don't believe the majority are logically dysfunctional, and hope there is a silent majority, waiting with more patience and understanding of the difficulties. Like I've said many times before the development deserve alot of heat for the unfinished release, and the problems are significant enough that its certainly not necessary to misinform, exaggerate, to make a point. How the recent code changes that caused a different engine start problem can be extrapulated into the devs not doing any patch testing is not very logical. Possible but not logical.

We bought an unfinished product without doing our due diligence, relying on past history. That won't happen again. That doesn't make it right, but the developer made an apology and appeared to have every intention to make it right. They've rewritten and provided patches for the sound and graphic engine, and are in the process of rewriting the GUI, AI, SDK, etc. Unfortunately they can't do that forever and survive financially, so they will be releasing a paid Sequel with hopefully many of these fixes included. I will buy the Sequel only after doing my due diligence this time, and make sure the fixes/features I want are working and they apply to the Channel Map as well as the Russian Maps.

[QUOTE=Chivas;46601
We bought an unfinished product without doing our due diligence, relying on past history. That won't happen again. That doesn't make it right, but the developer made an apology and appeared to have every intention to make it right. They've rewritten and provided patches for the sound and graphic engine, and are in the process of rewriting the GUI, AI, SDK, etc. Unfortunately they can't do that forever and survive financially, so they will be releasing a paid Sequel with hopefully many of these fixes included. I will buy the Sequel only after doing my due diligence this time, and make sure the fixes/features I want are working and they apply to the Channel Map as well as the Russian Maps.[/QUOTE]

Agree 100%
I will also be evaluating very carefully the features of the sequel prior to purchasing. As it stands now, I think that we will have a reasonably steady and flyable sim with the recent major issues fixed and noticeable graphic anomalies corrected. I have accepted the approach by the Devs to concentrate on new development and don't expect a large investment of their time to bring COD up to full completion at this time. I do expect though, that the sequel will have some form of compatibility wherein we will get to experience COD as it was intended to be from the outset.

In the meantime, I and my squadmates will enjoy flying on some of the great servers we have until the sequel arrives. I see great potential despite the current frustrations experienced by all parties.

Despite my venting at beta results and procedures, all-in-all, I'm enjoying the sim immensely.

How can i start my Hurricane, ACE-OF-ACES?!?!?!

;)

Yes, there is plenty to vent about, but COD is just a map, with some dedicated aircraft, missions, and campaigns. Everything depends on them fixing the game engine and features for the Sequel. Any fixes will apply to all maps. When you fly the COD map in the sequel, the game engine, and features won't revert back to the version of features that we have now. Yes the mission and campaigns won't change, but the community will fill that void, building much better ones with improve game features, and game engine. Although Luthier has been sending mixed messages about the business model and Sequels. Hopefully the announcement on the future of the development will be good news.

Yes and no... it depends on the time of day on the server. Starting on the ATAG mission where it's just before dawn you'll still find yourself spamming the ignition key for a while before the engine will start up (on the 1a 100 Oct at least - not tried the 2a). As time on the server progresses to later in the day, when presumably the temperature of the environment warms from the Sun's glow, it becomes possible to start the engine in one go.

However, there is still a lengthy wait upon ignition before the engine warms up sufficiently to taxi and takeoff in the Spitfire compared with the 109 atm. It's not a major problem, more a small pain when you're trying to get airborne before vultures arrive or for example in a multiplayer campaign, where being able to scramble and get to altitude in time is of paramount importance.

EDIT: don't get me wrong, it's not a major problem like we have with the Hurricanes but if it could be fixed while preserving the newly fixed Spitfire FMs that'd be great. If it's a choice between a warm engine start but nerfed FMs/engine overheating problems (like the last patch), or what we have now, I'll happily take what we've got in this patch.

Make airstarts for now on ATAG, the worst thing with the Hurricane now is that it absolutely sucks at turning.

Not sure what your point is..

Is this question in regards to me pointing out how short the list of 'broken promiseses" is?

Assuming that is the case, you should know that no one (that I know of ) considers the the engine starting issue a "broken promises", it is just a bug.

Hope that helps! S!

Nope not a broken promise....just incompetence by the devs!

That's the reason i asked you how can i start the Hurricane engine... ;)

You are really amazing! :-P

Now, please, go back to your cave...

boy your a freakin hero!!!!

Glad you agree with me! S!

Incompetence?

You don't write software for a living or pleasure do you?

May I suggest that you goggle software bug and do a little reading on the subject?

After which you hopefully realize that most if not all software has bugs at one point or another, even reoccurring one, and thus not an indication incompetence and just the nature of the work.

Actually that is not true..

Granted the title is a little misleading, but read the OP and take note that he brought up several issues beyond the starting issue, i.e.

As you can see the OP also brought a mixture lever issue

Agenda?

Actually that is not true..

As you can see from my first post (jump in point) I was discussing the mixture lever issue that the OP brought up..

Where I pointed out the post by luither made note of the mixture lever being fixed, which resulted in it being reversed from previous version

We all want different things!

Me, I just wanted help the OP out by pointing out that luither made note of the mixture lever being reversed in that at that time it was clear he didn't realize that and that it may have something to do with him not being able to start the engine

Cave?

Sorry you lost me there

Ace is still in backpedal mode since he was telling the OP that it wasn't a bug and he just wasn't trying hard enough. Now he's on this "broken promise" crusade to help mask the fact that he put his foot in his mouth...again.

It is rather amusing isn't :lol:, really quite pathetic. But guys please don't quote him I have him on ignore for a reason.

Thanks

No worries about that Krupi!

Because they know if they quoted me it would show that I was initally talking about the mixture levers and not the engine starting.. It was not until my next post that I pointed out (quoted) Uthers re-post that some folks were able to start the engines online.. Which would also make it clear that at no time did I say this was not a bug.

PS I know you don't have me on ignore, due to the fact that every so often you reply to my posts, so, you only make yourself look silly trying to pretend you have me on ignore! ;)

http://www.djow.co.uk/bitsbobs/forum-troll-a_o_a.png

Sorry but i could not stop myself... :twisted:

Bye, i suspect i may take a wee break.

You and me both.

Hope folks get the idea about quoting text from him.

Personally, I would like the moderators to consider another criteria for banning and that is: a poster continually hi-jacking a thread and sending it into a bar-room brawl. I would use this poster as the base-line for that measurement.

+1 to both of you :lol:

LOL! Good one Tommy! :-P

+1

Tommy..

Please forgive me!

In that I forgot to give credit where credit is due!

That being you AGREE WITH ME on the subject of 'broken promises'

The only part that is confusing about all this..

Is you called me a troll for pointing out something that you yourself agree with..

And, you even went as far as to generate that troll pic with my Avatar head on it..

But that is neither here nor there!

I am just glad that you agree with me!

Granted, I never went as far as to call them childish.. I just considered them to be un-informed, and or confused