I will mate, Im done with it.

Luthier. First thanks for taking the time to answer my reply. However, I can't help but feel some kind of shizophrenic split between the first comment I quoted (where you disagreed with CloD not having any offline content) and what you wrote above. First you implied that offline is of no consequence and then you apologized for not adding stuff there due to resource issues. So what's it going to be? :confused:

Secondly I am aware that the services for Clod have been read already. I was talking in general and about future projects and your first reply implied (strongly) that offline gameplay is of no particular, if any, importance in your opinion. This strikes me as extremely strange, especially given the still strong factor of offline players. Yes, a lot of creativity lies within the community, but not paying attention to offliners and their needs and not utilizing a good offline campaign and decent single missions as showcase for what the engine can achieve is strange (to put it mildly). Just my 0,02 €...

Join the club Tree,the members community is growing daily;)

Seriously?........you are actually going to walk out the door for a change?

I appreciate the second set of answers Luthier.

The way I see it from your replies is that whatever is fixed in the next patch is what it will be for good?

BoM will be a new game, new gui, fully working graphics (still using speed tree), a proper campaign, dgen and the maps and aircraft from CloD will be imported into the new game engine?

With regards to the 'new' graphics engine, screenshots don't make look much different from CloD at the moment so can you tell us what's changed or going to change?

Your replies indicated that you were handed over a broken product and your time has been spent repairing it. Now that you will be 'free' of CloD what do you intend to do differently?

Lastly it really is appreciated that you take time to interact with the community, if you did this more regularly I really feel there would be considerably less animosity across the forums.

Finally the way I read your reply is that BoM will be a new game with CloD maps and aircraft imported into it?

If a player has CloD installed that will be a standalone game, if a player buys BoM they get BoM with CloD incorporated into it? So the BoM won't install over Clod it will contain CloD and probably remove the old version when BoM is installed?

Thanks again for the replies, although not what I wanted to hear your interaction (in the second set of answers and some of the first!) IS appreciated.

Please interact more in future.

Cheers, MP

BTW, I think the reason so many of us are passionate about this is that we were spoiled by 1946 and we know we have touched greatness. CloD just didn't fulfill the promises we hoped for.

Good luck with BoM, is there any provisional timeline for releasing it? Maybe 2014, second quarter?

Hi Luthier - a lot of communication today, thank you!
bacj
I have a question about effects: I miss the "quick flashes" upon impact of my bullets on the enemy a/c. They helped a lot to assess shooting. Will they be back in the final patch?

Cheers,
Insuber

Thank you luthier for the answers and the great work. I am sure the next patch for CloD will be a breathtaking awesome milestone in flightsim history.

Just have to say thanks for the solid answers in Part II. Much appreciated and feeling more positive about the sequel now.

Good questions, I would like to add one more.

You have stated hit sounds will be added, what about flak sounds.

They look fantastic especially at night, we really could do with some sounds on them as well.

It would add a lot more to the immersion to hear the terrifc crack noise they made.

luthier
Quote:
Can we increase even more the degree of realism e.g. available & working aircraft systems?
Just a side note, please remove the ever icing clouds, most of them are not, especially flying low, it's not that often sub zero.
We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.


I wonder what is not being used, could you explain this a bit.

That's only human.

Those who waste away their lives spouting hate on these forums aren't ever going to contribute anything worthwhile to this world. You've made a sim that, though flawed, has allowed us a peek into the future of hi-fi flight simming. And hopefully not a peek into an alternate universe!

With BoM the main effort should be towards delivering the technological breakthroughs of CoD in an appetizing and user-friendly package.

It will be crucial to the success of BoM that the community is allowed to populate the sandbox, so I think a major effort should go towards documentation. A website explaining the FMB thoroughly (where users can also upload cool scripts). And tutorials on how to fly the planes (like the DCS series in-cockpit interactive ones). That will go a long way towards the catalytic level, where the sim develops a life on its own, like Il-2 "Classic."

I always dreamt of (virtually) flying in WWII. With CoD you have kept the dream alive, but unfortunately not totally fulfilled. I wish you success in the future, so that you + an active community can help fulfill the dream!

And if you need some positive vibes, check out my CoD movies, passing half a million views pretty soon... The interest and passion is out there, just got to grab it! :-)

No single word on SLI or FSAA. Riddiculous.

Winger

You're already playing on it with CoD.

Luthier, thank you for answering the particle question this time around, my apologies for failing to get your humour in the first set of answers.

Compared to the other issues that CLoD has, these two are so utterly and ridiculously minor issues that they don't warrant mentioning at all.

Cheers for the replies I won`t be as negative from here on in, I think we need to lay off them a bit and wait for Bo? to see what happens from that point on. It`s obvious that the sequel will the defining moment, sh*t or bust so to speak, and it`ll also be the point where this team as it stands has had full control of the games destiny rather than picking up a pile and having to mould it into something workable in a short space of time. Give em a chance and forget past errors, after all it`s the only large scale WW2 flight sim on the horizin (as opposed to Gaijins mickey mouse efforts and DCS`s £30 a throw planes).

I think you are wrong there if you place any value on pre-orders. Good will takes time to build, especially when you are well behind to start with. Definitely starting to look forward to the sequel now.

Sobering stuff though. BoM is still a couple of years away I imagine, based on past experience. Here's hoping they can rediscover the art.

Yes, sobering but I think there is a subtle point that people are missing. Luthier has been the project manager of the sequel from the start whereas he took over partway through the development of CoD.

It is very difficult to successfully take over a project partway through. People are already entrenched in their own way of doing things (which have usually led to the disaster requiring a change in project leadership). The team is often resentful and this makes it difficult to change the way the project moves.

Luthier might do better with the sequel than with CoD.

To my way of thinking the replies appeared genuine and sincere and I appreciate the effort. These guys aren't required to talk to us so anything we get is a real bonus.

I suspect Luthier and co view any ongoing dialogue as something of a two edged sword, but to my way of thinking discussion, and the appearance that you are being listened to, is always worthwhile.

Thanks again for the replies.

I don't know. Reading his comments I get the feeling that his creative philosophy is so far from mine that the sequel will be a rather hollow experience and one that is sadly not for me.

Maybe but at least it will be his own 'creative philosophy' rather than someone else's that he has to work with. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Thanks for the replies to our questions. I look forward to the sequel and the further, more extensive, improvements to the game engine and the gamer's experience it will bring.

Will you be dropping the Il-2 Sturmovik name from future releases? Any cache Il-2 Sturmovik may've had in terms of product recognition etc., has surely been erased by the CloD debacle.

Luthier, for God's sake. please open your eyes and understand: THERE IS NO OFFLINE PLAY ATM. and that not due to lack of 3rd party content, length of official campaign or horrible GUI.

no matter how good is, or it is not, a campaign/mission made (and Desastersoft's seems quite to actually be good), it has ZERO playability value because of:
- broken AI, which won't play along with you. it's like you are not existent for them, invisible. they won't follow, they won't consider you a part of their flight
- porked combat AI (they will pass each other 300m away without noticing each other, strange combat maneuvers, lack of maneuvers when fired at, etc, etc, etc)
- broken Radio Comms - you can not get them do anything.

do you understand that those are system sooo broken they are almost inexistent? and that, without them, there's no damn single player game at all?!!

that's why the number of community made content fall out to zero. because there's no point to make anything based on systems which are not working. We had two very good dynamic persistent battlefield engines on work, and both stopped dead because of exactly this reason.

come on!!!

And that's the point. What do we expect? Many here are looking forward to an arcarde online flight shooter, others prefer a WW2 flight simulation, a successor of the IL2 series. I'm glad that Luthier clarified this point in is own humorous way once and for all and with no doubts. Now we all know where we stand with him and his future products.

Take it or leave it, that's his unmistakable message.

Hm?
Honestly, I don't give a flying F about early 109s and Spits anymore - I'm looking forward to 190s and Yaks.:cool:

btw: How are they supposed to finance further patching? I'm actually suprised they went this far.

and luthier, what about community sponsored aircrafts? there might be enough volunteers to work/pay for some extra BoB not planned aircrafts, like the wellington.

S!

Would make it easy if devs made a poll on a plane people wanted to be added and give the price for it. Very much like in RoF where you can pre-order a plane. This could appeal to other features as well. Enough paying customers = feature/plane in the game. Sure not liked by all, but..

Personally I think that this sim is a creative work of art that should be left in the hands of the deveopers.

Put in a poll and well end up with a FW-190 Vs P-51 sim, which have been done Ad nauseam over the years.

I'ld rather the devs explored avenues of the sim that they were passionate about rather than bung out content to a formula.

Agree on this, especially since communities (especially this one) cannot agree on damn near anything.

Thanks for the answers Luthier. I always imagined that if you turned up to answer some questions the mob mentality of a certain few would be fully unleashed. I am certainly interested in your next sequel and that is why I still visit these forums, I also feel no anger or ill will either to you or your company.

Maybe now that you have drawn a line in the sand,of where you are now and where you hope to go in the future, it will finally make these negative nancy's move on to different pastures and stop the daily crucifixion that your company receives on its own forum. That is what I hope, but I know we are unlikely to get.

I was about to comment (as this is my first time writing on this forum), but could add nothing to the above. These were my questions exactly. Standing by for answers to these critical questions.

I think if you answer the above points, specifically and clearly, most of the animosity will be abated and faith restored.

v/r
Stel

Luthier - just to be absolutely clear....
 

Luthier,
just to be absolutely clear, because some people here will split your words if they can....

Are you saying that if I buy the sequel and load it over CoD I will be able to return to the CoD BoB map, use the sequel's FMB to build new CoD missions, use its new GUIs, use the sequel's new AI commands, in fact use all of the sequel's new core utilities and improvements, to create new CoD/BoB scenarios including off-line missions and will have the old CoD aircraft included with their FMs updated (where necessary)? In other words the CoD part of "SoW/whatever" will be brought to the same level as the sequel.

This is the best statement of the year. Thank you for answering honestly and you've earned my respect back. Now, let's press forward with the next project and keep the promises and goal obtainable. Thank you and your team again for the effort. I look forward to what the future holds with this learning experience.

Now, remember this:

"The achievements of an organization are the results of the combined effort of each individual."
Vince Lombardi

have a great day

K9

I took it as him saying that you won't install it over the top, it wil be a separate game, but will have this content in as well as the BoM stuff.

I developed real sympathy for mr shevchenko from his answers. he comes over like a real person and i feel i understand better why he has such a relationship with fans of the franchise, i really do.

but as usual it is answers like this which make you lose sympathy because of arrogance and because they are just simple incorrect:

***

Quote:
1. What specifically is preventing clouds from being depicted in a volume and quality that is competitive with other sims currently on the market?

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?

Because I know there isn’t.

****

Isn't? I must be playing games that don't exist then? Rise of Flight, Battle of Britain II even, War Thunder, Wings of Prey . . . all of these have great clouds in quality, and volume and high fps.

Understanding the competition and recognising they have strengths, is a basic first business skill Mr Shevchenko

and PS, you have the same blind spot about dogfighting AI.

My understanding as well. Sequel will include CloD planes & maps.

Agreed... So I expect the next game to have better clouds than this :P

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResour...12_03_23/4.htm

+1000%
Luthier your answers to our questions suck.blowing a rasberry at a real question is childish and shows you have no respect for this community.Most of your answers were really ignorant.maybe that is why your sound guy left.

how can you soar with eagles when you work with turkeys?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oma_...eature=related

I'd daresay that the respect of the community has for him has gotten at least a tiny notch higher because of his answers. Yes, some of them are probably rude for some, but be that as it may: Most if not all of them were honest.

Which, quite frankly, is the ONLY reason as to why I'll consider picking up BoM. Honest, straight answers.

Thanks for the re-answering, now that misunderstandings are cleaned up, there is one last question I would like to have answered:

Will Missions, Campaigns and stuff that were made for CloD be compatible with BoM? This concerns me because I own Desastersoft-add-ons, which I would like to use with BoM as well...

Thank you, your answers are appreciated! I am looking forward to the sequel.

I wish i had seen the part 2 of his answer before i made my post.



yes the situation sucks i agree.


@ Luthier, A person gets upset sometimes and says things without looking further into the problem.If I had seen part 2 of your post i would not have made my post so harsh.for that i am sorry.
hope you accept my apology

i edited that post.

Luthier said:
Well since you replied directly twice, and it is welcome, I will jump back in briefly.

Firstly, we FINALLY have a sort of realistic assessment of where things were (mostly always) at. It has taken a long time...it is only a real shame we didn't have this much, much sooner, and without the sarcasm and window-dressing. I used to work in a highly pressured dev house with large financial backing, mile-stones, the whole nine yards...and these sorts of responses are fine...in-house and on internal email systems. But I don't know of a single project manager - who wants to keep his job - who would let them out into the wider world. 'What goes on in dev stays in dev', or words to that effect. I'm amazed. Personality, yes, credibility...I don't know. That's your call. Personally I'd have a big recent hit under your belt before I took that line.

As for your more technical responses, I am truly baffled by some. They fall into slack-jaw territory. But it doesn't really matter - that game is dead anyway. You said so, and a handful of us knew it from the beginning.

(and boy do the rabid 'usual suspect' element now look silly. Upended on facts, rapidly shifting the goalposts to personalities. Good luck with that one!)

But above all it's just nice to hear some answers to the criticism, and that alone. The effort of replying is worthwhile, believe it or not.

[QUOTE=JG52Krupi;465826]Agreed... So I expect the next game to have better clouds than this :P

http://riseofflight.com/SharedResour...12_03_23/4.htm[/QUOTE

Or this:

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/w.../mission2a.jpg

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/w...5Bsepluf23.jpg

I agree, this cloud comment from Luthier made me shake my head. Dude! Play some Rise of Flight, War Thunder. Great looking clouds with smooth fps.

If you think BOB II has better clouds you've got eye sight problems, and that screenshot is a perfect example, don't get me wrong BOB II is a GREAT game, many aspects of it are excellent, the AI in particular is unrivaled by any other flight sim, but it just can't hold a candle to bob for it's environment and lighting, and yes that means the clouds too, not to mention the depth of modeling at the aircraft level, Wings of prey is an arcade shooter and does so much less then COD it's like comparing Team Fortress 2 to ARMA 2, chalk and cheese mate, chalk and cheese.

As far as Luither's posts go, I personally say excellent responses for the most part, I got the humour he intended pretty much straight away, although I can see why some people got a bit antsy over them, text doesn't always convey what is ACTUALLY meant, and the tone can sometimes be misunderstood.

I liked the general tone of the answers, they seemed like real answers coming from a real person, and for that I'm very grateful, and his frank honesty has given me faith in the sequel, and where the series is headed, some were certainly not some of the answers I wanted, but I've always preferred brutal honesty over pretty BS so they doesn't bother me too much, you always know where you stand with it, and thats the way I like it.

Although some of the replies I've read here from some forum members has only confirmed to me at least the type of people they really are, hopefully they really do stay away this time.

[QUOTE=planespotter;465855]Really not sure what I am looking at there to be honest!!! Urghhh

I'd settle for standard IL2 1946 clouds to be honest.

A better example of what BOM should be aiming at...

http://imageshack.us/a/img683/8981/new5fx.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img850/6681/day3l.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img836/4170/day1j.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img718/6006/r...6075156062.jpg

Nice, thanks Furbs my one was just taken from the ROF website.

Thankyou for clarifying some of your answers. I realize that the rude manor in which some of them were asked can make a civil answer difficult. Yes the forums are very negative, but I still think the silent majority understand the difficulties, and will continue to support the series, "IF" the reviews are good, and substantial improvements are made to many of COD's issues in the Sequel.

You mentioned that the community hasn't yet provided the level of input you had hoped for in regards to campaign building etc. There was less community input because the sim wasn't playable for a large portion of the community that could have made these improvements. Now that you have addressed many of the performance issues this aspect should improve. Campaign builders seem to be having issues using some complex features in the FMB. Are there problems in the FMB, and if so what problems are your team addressing?

You mentioned there won't be anymore aircraft built for COD. I understand this, but it should be mentioned whether its obvious or not that some aircraft built for the Sequels will be available and historical to the Channel map. Or am I wrong to assume this?

Furbs, what are your RoF video settings? Those look superb.

Salute

Here is the Google translation of Luthier's replies to the Russian forums. Obviously the translation lacks:

cool.... a lot of in the sequel....can't speak about....

all this time to wait for this!!!!!!!

omg!

Luthier, thanks for the answers. Carry on the good work.

With no money coming in, and still a long time before any does, I can understand your frustrations when the game still doesn't work as planned. It's a desperate situation and the pressure must be enormous. Especially for those at the top.

Without CoD working well as a base then no move forward. No move forward means (no more sales and no more wages for developers and) no more game.

The core of the game needs to be right and that is what you are fixing. Most of the forum complaints are directed at other issues though. I wish some of the forum community had a better understanding of the difficulties involved.

I didn't perceive any rudeness in the answers. It was like one pilot talking to another, with a bit of raw humour. I prefer it that way.

Remember that those waiting patiently for the sequel will never be heard.

Original

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...223_162229.jpg


Current

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7163/6...4192142a_o.jpg

Please look at Luthier!!!!

I use NV inspector and a custom profile.

I can send you it if you want?

Those clouds are just fantastic, almost no FPS drop and water on the goggles.

I hope BOM will be able to compete.

I have an ATI card, so it won't work, will it?

That would depend on how good the hookers are :grin:


Thanks for the feedback Luthier and love the sense of humour (I don't envy the position between a rock and a hard place you seem to be in)

For pitys sake, if you are going to post comparison shots to prove your point can you at least get one at a similar time of day so as not to muddy the issue.

+1

My point with BoB2 clouds is not that they compare with RoF, agree they do not, but that they are better than CoD many ways. No fps hit, multi altitudes layers and types, and you can hide, the AI can't see in them.

RoF is the new benchmark tho.

The prob is clearly these devs have blinkers like a horse, which they need to lose, and change mindset before they will have success. B6 admits they don't play their own game, so they obviously don't play other sims in a serious way to see what the competition is doing.

Except War Thunder. I bet and hope they are playing that to learn from.

I really hope they not learning anything from war thunder... :P

The AI can see thru the clouds in BOB WOV, unless they changed it in the last couple of years. There was a rumour a few years ago that the AI couldn't see thru clouds but it was untrue. B6 admitted "he" didn't play COD, not "they don't play their own game".

I hope WarThunder does give the new IL-2 series some competition, hopefully its alot better than WOP with its small maps and partial airstarts that were only good for mindless furbals. I bought the nineteen dollar version of WarThunder, but all the offline missions are locked at least in the version I have, so I haven't had much interest in flying it yet, to make any kind of evaluation.

They cannot see through the clouds. It has been changed for quite a while.

:grin: :grin: :grin:
You seriously expect any competition from an arcade MMO game, that can be played with mouse and keyboard? Are you kidding me?

Exactly :lol:

Not sure if it's true but I hear that you can't belly land in warthunder as you just blow up and from the videos the damage model makes vanilla 1946 look good!!

Lol, :) Still don't know, why this warthunder is still mentioned. It is not comparable, you do not have the viewing distances, the lod, the behaviour of invironment. So it is not relevant to learn anything from warthunder, except perhaps some effects, when they run better. But how to evaluate, if the game runs in atotally different kind of genre with totally different goal? I bet, that due to its lack of details in every aspect, I will be able to run it at 60fps easily. It is a console game. Please do not compare complicated games with easy programmed games, which could be made with some web designers doing a different profession just for fun.

Sorry, but this is total fail to ever compare it. It is like comparing world of tanks with tiger vs t34. And its like asking, why tiger vs t34 needs more resources, although wot has better graphics (by the way: wot is fun sometimes, but the new reworked engine is a big szep back, although all the casual gamers do not see it technically).

Please leave warthunder, console il2 games and world of warplanes out of this sim forum, as they are a totally other world.

I saw video with external view, external crosshairs, and the Spit shot down both wing of He 111 with one burst... :shock: "detailed and complex damage system."... suuuure ;)

Come on guys, please don't turn this in to a discussion thread.

...

Would it be possible to hand out information on how to handle each aircraft the proper way?
after 1,5 years, there is still too much confusion about the different types of planes, and how they perform the best way,and how to get the most out of them.
For example every month there is another thread about the prop pitch management of the 109, and even among the experienced 109pilots there doesnt seem to be a consensus on whats the best way...
for example: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34328
there is historical information around in the net and in books, but we dont know whats implemented in game, what works best, and how it is intended to work...


Luthier:"Our goal has always been that the actual aircraft flight manuals should be used with Cliffs of Dover. If that’s not the case, the only people that know the guts well enough to write a flight manual are our aircraft programmers – and in that very case their efforts are better spent bringing the performance in line with the actual flight manuals.
In other words, there’s never a situation where writing a flight manual for Cliffs of Dover is a good idea."

with all due respect, trying to flight according to the flight manuals of the 109 youll have no chance at all online against other 109s...i just tried it today.
your FMs are way off the flight manual, and according to other people, thats not only the case with the 109 but for all the RAF planes as well.

trying to get the most out of a 109 according to the flight manual in regards of prop pitch settings and rpm, will in fact make you very slow in your game and not at all competetive...

Isn't this the point, the FMs are too far off?

Luthier has said 'Absolutely' to putting more effort into getting the CoD FMs right if we demonstrate they are wrong. That is where our effort should be and his efforts will follow.

Even if you get the best info on how to fly "the CoD 109" properly it will still not be right if the FM isn't brought into line with the flight manual.

Someone needs to fly the 109 against historical data and give him the results. Most people are just complaining the FMs are not right and posting a few words about it ("its too slow at SL", "it doesn't deliver 1.3ata at x metres altitude") but not proving the point effectively so who is Luthier to believe when member A just says one thing and member B says something different? Fly the tests and give him the data from his own FMs. You can do this by hand, making notes etc as you fly (tricky!) or use something like I use here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...6&postcount=10

And yes, it does take some time and effort whichever way you do it. But why should Luthier listen to any beta tester who doesn't return proper test results?

I would like to express a thank you for Luther for taking the time to go through questions raised & for answering them.

I experienced a big improvement just by upgrading from Windows XP to Winows 7 (64 bit), so flying over London now, albeit on lowish settings doesn't cause my system to freeze, so I'm happy.

When funds allow, then I'll be working on upgrading the rest of my system, starting with a graphics card.

PS - developers/programmers - are you all in a Lottery syndicate & should you win would you all quit or carry on improving ClOD? I for one wouldn't blame you for all walking out & saying stuff it after some of the comments that have been made.

+1

Around three years ago it was rumoured that the AI couldn't see thru clouds in BOB WOV, but the developer set the record straight and said they could, but that doesn't mean they haven't changed it since then, although I think its unlikely.

My biggest disappointment is what has been said about Coops.

Also some confusion whether CLOD will benefit from updates in the sequal i.e. improved clouds/water or what ever. Is this going to work like IL2 did?

Other than that I am a bit more impressed after the 2nd set of answers, I don't think the jokes in the first lot were such a good idea as flight simmers are slightly passionate about the subject.

Also fairly impressed with the patch. Still not played online since December last year but I am a little more tempted with the apparent improvements to spotting aircraft and them not vanishing as the dots change to a shape.

Please please think about a way to implement some form of coop other than the dogfight server type we have now.

I understand why Luthier is not wanting to address the coop issue, if he fixes it for us then there is a good chance we could get online wars happening again, this may interfere with his plans for an MMO later which could be a potential cash cow for him.

Pure speculation and almost certainly bullsh*t

Explain to me then why Luthier will not address the coop problem in CLOD or the sequel when so many of his customers have said they think it is a very important feature?

I don't have to, Luither has already explained it, 3rd answer down, please pay attention to the last sentence in particular.
It's written in plain text so I don't know how you missed it.

Here it is again in case you did somehow miss it.


Luither

Redoing co-op is a huge task. We are a business. We have to make a profit somewhere somehow. We cannot keep pumping resources and releasing free patches for Cliffs of Dover forever.
And regarding not using our products in the future if we do not redo co-op now. I believe the majority in this community actually will. If we offer a much more comprehensive co-op experience in a future product, and especially if such an experience still allows you a trip back in time to fly some Spits and 109s over the Channel, well, I really hope that most people will want to get the sequel.
To reiterate - I've never said that we'll never address co-op, I've only said we cannot do it within the Cliffs of Dover project.

ok so that means not in this version of Cliff of Dover IL2 Sturmovik.

We will see a more robust IL2 Sturmovik Version next year?

with the Channel map in it?

Their alpha of the new sequel will be ready next year for their internal roadmap (according to b6).

Would think the sequel would be ready 2013/2014. Its anyones guess when i suppose. The engine is the same as the one they are using now so its the GUI remake, added features and models that need the most work (and maps).

lol, and you really believe this?

You asked for an explanation and there it is, plain and simple, from the horses mouth so to speak.
if your the kind of person that doesn't believe something when it's in plain english and constantly finds the negative in everything well then too bad for you I guess.

If you don't believe them then let them know by not buying the next game.
Coming here, reading things straight from the devs and then making up what can only be described as BS to better suite an agenda, troll or just save you from getting bored at work seems extremely childish and just plain paranoid to me.

Good luck with that.

Actually Luthiers answers prove everything you have just stated above,i won't believe a single thing Luthier says now until it is proven ,tried and trusted.
The proof will be in the pudding--not in what he claims or states

You don't believe anything the devs say, which begs the question, why are you still here? You still don't get it, Luthier's is stating what they are trying to achieve, there are no promises, there are approx 40 members of the dev team working on different aspects of the sim, each fix/improvment will be applied when they are ready, thru patches or new addons. The huge delays have put the series in jeopardy, anything can happen at this point, many of them not good.

Fair enough, and that's your right of course.
Making that decision based on what's actually been said and your passed experience is sensible.
I've made the same decision based on the same things and just come up with a different opinion, different strokes for different folks and all that.

I've played IL-2 for a long time and it's given me faith in them that they'll produce the goods again, I also appreciate Luithers brand of honesty, again, in whats actually been said not what people make up in their heads.

Hopefully when the sequel comes out we'll both be happy campers

The fact that the sequel will be using the same engine tells me all I need to know. :(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcFd5j1cios

Glo

So you think that the devs can't improve COD's game engine? I know your a fan of Warthunder. Gaijin is using the same game engine for Warthunder that it used for their less than successful WOP sim and I would imagine that Gaijin is doing some major improvements to their game engine to make Warthunder a success. Atleast to have any chance of drawing support from the IL-2 crowd.

Their performance to date suggests they probably can't.

I'm afraid I have very little confidence in that area sadly. After all this time since CloD's release there have been no major breakthroughs with updates to the engine and it's difficult to be optimistic about it at all. Hearing that the sequel will be using this same engine fills me with dread.

Yes, I am a fan of Gaijin's work and also an IL-2/MG fan for many years before this. I am very impressed with Gaijin's WoP (Dagor) engine. Regardless of what you may think about WoP as a title and entry to the genre, it's graphics engine set a new bar. It may have had an unusual green filter on the Britain map(!) but the engine itself was a breakthrough. It makes perfect sense that Gaijin would use this foundation and improve upon it for their next project. In stark contrast 1C have an engine that was broken on day one, has seen little improvement after over a year and THIS is the foundation for their sequel! How can this instil any confidence? It certainly doesn't for me I'm afraid. This engine has gone as far as it can go in my eyes. IT is the bottleneck, not the hardware.

Now, we are getting one last update for CloD. A make or break update really. Sadly CloD is already broken so it either 'makes' it or it stays broken. Then how long till the sequel arrives that uses the SAME engine?

1C may not learn from their mistakes, but the fan base will.

Glo

Sadly I do have to agree. Gaijin may only have small maps but the graphics engine for the lighting, clouds, ground objects and many more VISUAL effects is completely superior, HOWEVER the detail of the cockpits and aircraft themselves are not comparable.

The Green tinge Glo refers to isn't really an issue as a quick tweak in the graphics engine could fix this in seconds.

I would love to see IL2 1946 imported into the WoP or WT game engine. That way we get great clouds, great landscape, great reflections, lighting and huge benefits.

The only thing that IL2 needs to bring across is the 3D models for the aircraft, the FM and DM (once netcode and patches have been done).

The GRAPHICS engine if modified for CloD or BoM is far superior and is actually working and runs at full detail (Cinema Mode) on reasonable systems. Not the beasts that everyone has to employ to even get 30-fps in CloD.


Look, I like IL2: 1946 it's incredible. We already know that CloD is dead and now we wait to see if the 19-months of fixes they tried to do in CloD can be thrown out of the window and the new Graphics engine (hang on isn't it the same one?) will work fine?

If Gaijin had created the GRAPHICS engine for ClOD no-one would be sitting here bleating about not being able to run it smoothly, tree pop-up, tree collisions not working, building pop-up, draw distance...no-one (other than the die-hards of course!), but they didn't.

So now we can wait and see if Luthier can actually get rid of the 'Legacy' graphics engine from IL2 and CloD (both had horrendous pop-up buildings and textures) and start with the 'new' all-singing, all-dancing and fully working Graphics engine.

No-one doubts that CloD and IL2 are far superior in Simulation but I would disagree with anyone who says the immersion is fine, as Graphics make you believe what you are seeing and the clouds, rain, smoke, fire are all superior in WoP and WT than that in CloD but I'd have to question Gaijin's Graphics against the detail and realism of DM/FM and much better damage modelling of fire and smoke/fuel leak in the modded HSFX 6.01 (and soon to be 4.12).

As much as I may harp on about this clip, nothing in IL" or CloD matches the weather and cloud effects (true opaque clouds = 3D fighting above and below) and no pop-up of buildings.

Surely the 'far' superior and expert 1C can produce this at a minimum when the 'lowly' Gaijin who many treat with disdain, can manage this?

http://youtu.be/QJF_oPrvNtU

So if the 'lowly' Gaijin can produce the above with a 'rubbish' game engine, what the heck are 1C doing with all their experience?

Anyway, I still hope for the best with CloD, but HSFX 6.01 is my ride of choice while we wait for another 2-years for BoM.

But I still dabble with Wings of Prey...it looks amazing and so does the terrain!

MP

If WOP was as good as you say the Il-2 community would have moved to the Gaijin development in droves. That never happened the SimHq Gaijin forum is dead, WOP maps were too small for anything other than mindless furbals, and I haven't seen anything yet that has changed. Personally I hope Gaijin will be able to improve their game engine to include the Global Map they've been talking about and still have decent terrain. Contrary to what you say COD has made advancements in the sound engine, performance, FM, engine management features, and should continue to improve until the Sequel is released. The only difference between the COD development and the Gaijin development is the NDA which effectively stops most negative points of view.

I find this attitude rather strange in a thread where Luthier is answering questions from the forum folk after dozens of vitriolic posts on the lack of communication. As soon as he opens his mouth he is a bare faced liar. I hope no one is expecting lots more communication anytime soon.

I can't help feeling that some seem to have a rather tenuous grasp on reality. Sure, you have bought a game and are entitled to something fit for purpose but on receipt if it is not you are also entitled to return it and get your money back. If you choose to hang on to it then that is up to you.

Clearly customers are crucial to a business and a business needs to keep it's customers happy if it wants to be there for the long haul. But as Luthier has said quite bluntly that the only way to keep enough customers happy to survive is by providing a game that is good enough for large numbers to buy and enjoy. Trying to placate a small bunch of vocal malcontents who's main aim in life is to hurl abuse at him is a complete waste of time.

The reality is that he can no longer afford to bring CloD fully up to scratch before releasing the sequel. The sequel will benefit CloD but if it is not a success on release then I think you can say goodbye to the whole series. What will make it a success is good reviews as much as comments in forums. Don't forget that there will be one final official update for CloD that should make it far better and worth your money.

And what about your money on an individual basis? Assuming that you paid full price and didn't get it discounted or on the cheap from Russia than it would be about £50 or 50 bucks or whatever. If there are 50 people working on CloD then that is a pound or a euro or a dollar each. What can you get for that? A cup of coffee? Or maybe two if from a vending machine or three as they are in Moscow.

So all the little group of Mr Angrys together on this forum have done for CloD financially is kept the office in coffee for a week or two at most. Go figure.

I also think the latest update is a good improvement and that they can deliver a good series. I wonder if many people would not just be happy with the old IL2 but with CloD graphics. But CloD starts where IL2 left off. Take just the question on a manual for operating planes. With IL2 one set of controls worked for all planes so only one basic manual was needed especially as engine management was pretty basic. With CloD they want you to be able to use the actual manuals used by the pilots of the time for each different plane. How cool is that.

It might not be quite there yet but I really believe Luthiers vision is for a grown up game for adults and certainly not something for the Xbox generation.

Thats definitely a possibility especially if you disregard all the aspects of the sim that are already working. They have made advancements in the sound engine, performance, FM, Engine Management. Time will tell, but the longer they obtain financial support to work on the sim, the more likely things will get sorted.

Sim(ulation) or MMO (Massively Multiplayer Online Game)? These are two completely different pair of shoes as they address two completely different range of customers. If I got Luther right his new cash cow or "sequel" will be a MMO with complex engine management. So neither fish nor fowl and too late as the competition already entered the market!

Good luck ladies !

The WT forum is dead probably beacause all the fans are busy having a blast playing WT ! And although its under NDA, I don't read that many complaints anywhere...yet.
But THIS forum is active due principally to the fact that a lot of fans are very disapointed and feel that complaining at this point is more enjoyable than playing CLOD ! ;)

Nite !

They may be two completely different pair of shoes, but they can be done with basicly the same game engine, and add another source of revenue. It remains to be seen what direction the development will head. It could go only the Sequel route, only the MMO route, or both. Both would be better for revenue, but I'm not sure how difficult it would be to support both, even though they use almost exactly the same content, other than an MMO might not require extensive AI, and AI command software.

Did you properly read my post? I never expressed my opinions on the merits of WoP as a title. I said nothing of the game itself or what I think of it. I was talking about the engine. It's foundation, ground breaking engine compared to CloD's broken engine (from launch to present). It seems crazy to me that 1C will continue on this same path with the sequel as there does not seem much hope for the existing engine. What can they do with it in the next year that they didn't do over the last one?

The SimHQ Gaijin titles forum is dead indeed. A very different story exists over at the official Gaijin forums where there is an enormous amount of activity that is hidden from public view in the private forum. Activity I can't discuss in detail due to NDA.

I have both positive and negative points of view on WT but respect the NDA enough not to talk about either or the title's development outside of the Closed Beta. I wouldn't be much use to development if I said everything was just peachy and don't change anything you great guys!

Like I said, I have been an IL-2 fan for years and Storm of War was the great hope and dream. I am a fan of the genre and will add what I can to my hobby collection which should include CloD. Currently it is not on my SSD and wont be until I see the results of the final update (Steam backup waiting on an external drive). All hope lies there but any optimism I had has turned to almost complete pessimism over the past year and I won't be holding my breath. Any improvements made so far (placebo or real) always seem to come with a side-order of things that are broken.

How can CloD "continue to improve" as you say, if this is the final update (when it hits Steam)? This is it! If it remains broken after this last update, community developed content won't offer much salvation if half of it still doesn't work.

Glo

you make a number of exceellent points. I think Luither may have over promised and under delivered. ultimately actions speak louder than words and if the final patch fixes things within reason the majority should be content. However, there will always be the usual suspects droning on in favor of or against.to join chorus with " the FM's are inaccurate, etc.