I 'doubt' that it is a financial issue, they are a big company. Knowing anything about how the previous IL-2 series works, and the vast array of problems with this one, it's more than definitely a coding problem.

But , either 2 weeks or 2 weeks and 2 days. (Christmas) ;) :)

No, the problem is not financial or programming. I can not tell more.

UH, OH.... let´s hope for the best...

In the end navegational lighs only remit to problems of 1946:
Users using online as "Morse code"... some flying with landing light on like UFO... servers proibing use of then...
IA that dont turn lighs of in the night over combat zone...

Sokol1

dedicated server files
 

Is there plans for dedicated servers files?

Are we talking about patch for Cliffs of dover which should bring some optimisations to the game engine (performance)?

Might be some legal blah regarding Speedtree stuff, contracts to use the code, etc. If they've made sweeping changes to the game's graphics that affect the trees, the changes may be outside of the contract agreement.

Add to the list of questions

Yes. As soon as we resume work on the patch - I'll let you know about this.

Might be something to do with steam?

Hmm, it's possible, but unlikely. Steam's just the delivery service really. Graphics and engine updates aren't likely to impact on the net code that interfaces with Steam. That said, it's not impossible.

All this is speculation anyway. Let's just hope it's not a 'dealbreaker'. Remember the epilepsy filter emergency? :P

Thanks BlackSix,

Does this problem include the risk of further development being completely cancelled or is it for sure, just a temporal problem?

A temporal problem.

Black six ,your English is excellent :) all your postings are appreciated.

I sincerely hope it's not more blood sucking lawyers demanding payment for use of wartime designs - paid for by the people I might add.:evil:

It really sucks that we'll never see a full complement of aircraft and ships in a Pacific campaign for this very reason. A real disgrace.


I'd like to add my appreciation for your input BlackSix, it really makes a difference to the mood of the forum.:grin:

Have to agree, thanks BlackSix.

Always good to hear, any benchmarks on performance yet? :)

+1

Jimbop, I can say 100% from experience that not everyone will agree on an end result from a FM build. Your last comment is correct, there will 'never' be a 100% agreement on which data to use. If I dig up data for an A6M that has it at 358mph @ 15000ft, and also data that shows a test of the same plane as 325mph on the day of testing, which is correct?

Just one example of the quandary.

Of course if you aim to only use calculated data, it's equally a problem. You can't win the data source argument, only do your best to ensure it's 'consistent' criteria data, and that all aircraft are treated equally and with parity. The coffee table books most often used as a source of data by newer sim users looking to help, are a constant source of aggravation for those who have studded the topic for many years and invested lots of money buying original source material. There will always be arguments over this plane verses that based on stories, books, and even opinions.

My only advise, and the way I tackle it, is to gather as much original data, then use this as your basis for determining performance. It should be original source data but more so you need to understand aerodynamics, research any differences in the data, to understand why any variations exist so you are better armed to make a judgement call of which data is more likely accurate. Yes, unfortunately it required lots of study and experience to be able to do a good job in building FMs, and many 'sim builders' don't have the background or the spare time to do justice to this area.

I remain hopeful that some of the hard core FM guys that stalk these places can offer their help and vast collections of data and experience to what is most often (understandably) an under financed (in time and money) aspect of any commercial simulation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they ever release the core engine for us to build a game around, I'm first on board to build a Pacific Simulation. I have a few mates that may also be interested in working for nothing just to battle over the pacific.

IL2-BOP (Battle Over the Pacific)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hang in there BlackSix, you're doing a great job, I know how hard it is to manage a community of passionate people :)

I witnessed this issue in naryv's examples and hc-wolf's missions when run on Repka servers and I think the best solution is to respawn the groundgroup 500 m. further on the way to their next waypoint if it is stuck for 3-5 minutes and not in combat. Just an idea.

Has anyone gotten spline roads to load in the -server environment yet? I think the disappearance of some of the ground objects/bridges/land marks between SP/FMB and the dedicated server exist because of the spline road problem we have in the dedicated world.

@BlackSix,

Thanks for taking the time to answer many people's questions here. It is much appreciated!

I have several suggestions, but I'll leave the more complex out for now. My suggestion is to have a server sided option that makes players not able to leave their aircraft unless landed/crashed/died/bailed out. (Similar to what we had in the old IL2, via the "refly" button). Currently an online player can hit escape and simply spawn into a new plane any time he/she wishes, even in the middle of combat. This is annoying to say the least.

Thanks!

Yes this is possible and will solve the problem. An additional check against the ground type could prevent spawning within an ocean.

If I must add my wild guess about the temporary stop to the patch finalization, I would opt for a sudden need on another 1C project, e.g. to meet a deadline, requiring all hands on board to switch job. Temporarily :-)

Staffing problem, I reckon.

Agreed 100%

If by everyone you mean any Joe Blow flight simmer.. You know the kind of flight simmer who complains his P51 is too slow.. And when you asked what values he used, TAS or IAS.. His response is a blank stare and he says 'what is TAS and IAS'?

But..

IMHO if you limit the 'everyone' to 'everyone who is qualified' than I think you could obtain 100% agreement on 'most' items

The test that provides enough information to re-produce the test.. Chances are the difference in speed is due to some difference in the plane configuration and or test day conditions.. As in maybe the data was not converted back to STD ATM conditions.. That is to say, most if not all of the data I have reviewed, where there was a different in speed, there was also a difference in the plane configuration.

Agreed 100%

The goal should not be to 'win' over every Joe blow simmer.. for reasons I noted above. Because there is no winning that fight! The goal should be to win over a qualified group of people that the Joe blows trust

Agreed 100%

Nothing like Joe Blow simmer reading the coffee book table that says the P51's max speed is 426mph, and than he wonders whey he cant get no where near that value at sea level! Why? Because it was obtained at 26kft! ;)

Combat reports do cause a lot of problems.. Why? Well for one most if not all of them are one sided stories.. Most if not all of them DON'T provide enough information to recreate the scenario.. And most if not all of them did not have any recording devices running like they do in a standard test.

For example a P51 pilot writes in his report that he 'turned inside' a Bf109 and shot it down..

Problem begins when Joe Blow simmer reads that and thinks his simulated P51 should be able to out turn a Bf109..

Because Joe Blow simmer never stops to ask what altitude did this occur at, what was the P51s E state retaliative to the Bf109s E state prior to the scenario, what was the Bf109 pilots state? As in did the Bf109 pilot even see the P51 and try to avoid it? Was he wounded? etc.. etc..

Agreed 100%

So true

I am willing..

And able! ;)

I have been analyzing IL-2 data for some 10 years now and have written several programs to extract the data from IL-2 via DeviceLink and have written dozens of MATLAB script files to process the data collected during testing

Problem with CoD at the moment is they have not implemented the DeviceLink interface, there is the C# script method that can be used to collected (get) data but as far as I can tell there is no C# script methods to send (set) data. Thus porting over the IL-2 3rd party auto pilot will be hard to do with no way to send commands..

Thus we would have to rely on real sim pilots to preform the test.. And the down side there is, the errors due to the sim pilot are bigger then the errors you are looking for..

That is to say real sim pilots are no test pilots!

At least based on the dozens upon dozens of track files I have reviewed from IL-2 over the past 10 or so years

resume ?

you mean all work on it has been halted for some time now ?

i thought the further delays were caused by added problems being fixed, or the gfx engine problem being more complex and time consuming then originally anticipated

having an imposed work stoppage for other reasons is rather worrying

i dont think that is a good idea

having players being able to switch crew positions in one aircraft, or change aircraft (when killed or bored) adds "playability" for players.

to solve your problem, which is presumably that players switching aircraft use it as a cheat to avoid being registered as killed, is to make the server change the nick of the "jumping" player to something more generic (eg they loose their original nick tag, and get assigned a default new nick like "re-spawned"

if you notice players use the re-spawned method multiple times, you could even have the server number the name-tag, eg respawn1-12x etc

trying to completely remove a very good new feature (re-spawning to a new vehicle/plane) to try and solve a minor problem cause by a few idiots is not a very good idea

It could be made into a difficulty setting which is set by the server as well. Or a minor point penalty could be given (again, depending on the server settings) for re-spawning before landing or crashing.

Tonight will be the Friday update. Ilya answer questions that have been collected here and in the forum Sukhoi.ru.

Thanks BlackSix, looking forward to it!

Here is a list of questions in Russian (two in English).
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=73407

If anyone wants, it can pre-translate them into English. It's very help me.

"АНО, фар и сигнальных дымов" - - translated as "navigation lights, landing lights and the smoke alarm".
(АНО - Авиационные навигационные огни - Aircraft navigation lights)

S!

Great :) Good to see some info coming in. I am sure will calm down the crowd and easen the work of our moderators ;)

thx BlackSix!
its really good that we now have a base to commincate with the devs through you!i think its really important for the customers as well as for the devs that there is a constant chat between both parties.

Here's the questions translated from Russian into Russian-English.

1. They will earn in that preparing or subsequently [patche] of radio command?

2. Is planned the possibility of abandoning aircraft on the earth?

3. How do move the matters concerning SDK and documentation on the scripts and the triggers?

4. Is it possible officially to represent on the forum of new colleague, who carries out tuning flying model? Will be it occupied by tuning the current aircraft or has already been was switched to the new project?

5. Will appear the possibility to use in the game simultaneously 3 monitors?

6. Is expected the appearance of a possibility of including OF ANES, headlights and signal smokes as in the old “Il-2”?

7. Earlier it was declared, that in the game it will originally be present functional analogous Il-2_Compare. It is understandable that now this is priority task. But in the future will see we this functional or from it is decided to entirely refuse?

8. Prompt, is fixed collaboration on the optimization of drivers with the companies Of nvidia and AMD? Especially interests AMD, since to 69[khkh] of a series are observed essential artifacts.

9. Is planned the appearance of a cannon “Spitfire”?

10. Is planned the editing of on-line maps or the appearance of new?

11. Is planned the realization of the function of the rescuing of pilot on the water?

12. Is planned the realization of the possibility of collision with the detached components of aircraft?

13. It is planned to soon introduce into the system the system of titles and rewardings?

14. Is planned further work on the weather effects (sediments, thunderstorm so forth)?

15. Possible whether with the start of aircraft in air to automatically place radiator to the completely open position?

16. What does specifically affect the size of the file of the user diagram of painting in the plan of productivity?

17. Is planned the correction of the flying model Of bristol Of blenheim Of mk.IV on the basis of transmitted to you data?

18. When of you of are of going to of add Of structural Of limits to of the FM' s? (maximum of allowable g of acceleration on of the of aircraft of structure. And the of aircraft of damage of due to of exceeding of the Of vne or of maximum g of acceleration). (When you you will introduce the maximum permissible overloads for LA and destruction LA in the consequence of exceeding these overloads?)

19. Will make it possible SDK to create to users dynamic campaigns? 20. Is there of plans of for of dedicated of servers of files?

To these I would add my previous question.

a. Can we have some information about the AI objects & CPP scripts please. How to use them & what they do.

Можем мы иметь некоторую информацию о & предметов AI; CPP scripts пожалуйста. Как использовать их & чего они делают.

Thank you!
You'll find the answer to your question, when I will publish the answers of Ilya in the evening. The answer is the same as in question number 3.

Ok, slightly revised translation of questions:

1. Radio commands will work in the upcoming patch or in the future?

2. Is planned the possibility of ejection aircraft on the ground?

3. How do move the matters concerning SDK and documentation on the scripts and the triggers?

4. Is it possible officially to represent on the forum of new colleague, who carries out tuning flight model? Will be it occupied by tuning the current aircraft or has already been was switched to the new project?

5. Will appear the possibility to use in the game simultaneously 3 monitors?

6. Do you expect the appearance of the possibility of including the navigation lights, landing lights and the signal smokes, as the old "IL-2"?

7. Earlier it was declared, that in the game it will originally be present functional analogous Il-2_Compare. It is understandable that now this is no priority task. But in the future will see we this functional or from it is decided to entirely refuse?

8. Prompt, established a partnership to optimize the driver with the companies Nvidia and AMD? Particularly interested in AMD, since to 69xx of a series are observed essential artifacts.

9. Is planned the appearance of "Spitfire" with guns Hispano Suiza 20mm?

10. Is planned the editing of on-line maps or the appearance of new?

11. Is planned the realization of the function of the rescuing of pilot on the water?

12. Is planned the realization of the possibility of collision with the detached components of aircraft?

13. It is planned to soon introduce the system of military rank and rewardings?

14. Is planned further work on the weather effects (sediments, thunderstorm so forth)?

15. Possible whether with the start of aircraft in air to automatically place radiator to the completely open position?

16. At that specifically affect the file size custom user skin in terms of performance?

17. Is planned the correction of the flying model Bristol Blenheim MK.IV on the basis of transmitted to you data?

18. When you are going to add Structural Limits to the FM's? (maximum allowable g acceleration on the aircraft structure. And the aircraft damage due to exceeding the Vne or maximum g acceleration).

19. Will the SDK ability to create dynamic campaigns?

20. Is there plans for dedicated servers files?


Everything is normal?
Guys, I'm trying very hard but I do it all at the same time in two forums. It takes time to learn how to do it better.

Fantastic job BlackSix!

My acknowledgment.

Regards.

Thanx alot Blacksix!!
Your wofk here on the official forum is very much appreciated!!! I just wanted to tell you that!!

Thank you for your answers, Black.

And just one more question, please:
4) Can you guys give us access to the AI programming functions, to can over-ride/improve them in 3rd party code (dll's)?

This would be a great step forward, as we have many users around here with good programming and flight sim AI development experience in order to start things moving in this direction.

Thank you

Now it's too late to ask. I wrote down the question and pass it in the next list.

Yeah thanks BlackSix, great work.

+1

It's so great that we're hearing some consistent news agian. We definitely had a dry spell there for awhile.

Thank you for your time BlackSix! It's really keeping my interest alive in this sim.

HI BlackSix.

Do i remember correctly that You made some job with flight models to BoB2 Wings of Victory?

Salute 303_Kwiatek

No, there never has not worked. I started working on the simulators to immediately with Oleg Maddox in 2003.

Ok thx for answer. You right i checked my old PM's and it was Blue Six who worked over Bob2 VOW FM's.

Keep good working.

S!

BlackSix, could you please confirm that improvements to core game (weather etc) in Battle of Moscow will also apply to current game content? Thanks.

Dear BlackSix,

I have few questions:
- will the dynamic stall be implemented in the Flight Model?
- will the maximum altitude of the planes (ceiling) be raised to the historical values of ~10-11000 m ? Today it is 7-8000 m for most planes, and much less for the Fiat G.50
- will the performances of the poor G.50 be upgraded to be closer to the real historical values? The G.50 maximum speed today is ~350 kmh at sea level against 407 kmh found in books and online references. The G.50 ceiling in game is some 5000 m, against 10500 m found in various sources.
- will the UBI intro .wmv video issue be finally corrected? Today it clocks down the ATI cards to 2D-power saving mode, and gives really poor performances to the users that do not delete or rename it. That is most of ATI users I guess.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28054
- will the ghost dots issue be corrected? Today in online servers you see far contacts which disappear when you close in.
- will the GUI be optimized ? Today it's quite clumsy and not practical.
- will the track recording be improved? Today the main issues are: need to exit from flight to start recording, need to manually type a track file name, need to exit again from flight to stop the video, frequent crashes in the procedure, frequent crashes when trying to record an avi from a track.
- will the damage of a radiator by bullets produce a damage to the engine? Today you get the message "radiator leak" but the engine continues to run.

I did ask that question on Sukhoi.ru (using Google translate ;)). Blacksix answered there that as the game was not yet announced he could not answer if it would be released as a merged install...

This is my number one question also - if it's not going to be released as a merged install I would be very sad. Oleg said that they where going to use the same addon strategy with CoD as IL2 when he was still in command and it would be very odd to abandon that strategy IMO... Still, it would be nice to get it confirmed!

My No1 question as well....

If a merged install isn't possible I would kinda loose interest in the series and this would be the biggest letdown for me personally. I mean I don't want to have 2/3/4 or more different Flight simulations with the same core on my pc and when I want to play a Spit I have to exit the game and start the old CoD which will be no longer supported.
The possibility to merge all addons like the old il2 style was THE factor for the great success of this game imho.

Just imagine how it would be like if all il2 expansions were stand alones. There would never be this strong community...

Take a look at your CloD directory. There you'll find a folder called parts with a sub-folder named CORE and one named BOB. Which means the engine is geared towards modular additions. You can now stop panicking. :-P ;)

Also take a close look at your controls set up in the GUI.

Lots of things there that have no relevance to BoB or the Ost Front.

Relax and enjoy the ride.

Guess you are right but an official confirmation would calm everyone down...
Anyway I hope for the best and will definitely enjoy the ride to come

No. We have not announced the "Battle of Moscow". I can not say anything about it. No details were not disclosed. Sorry.

I wrote down the questions in the list of number 2

Don't agree with that kind of logic, my friend ;)

Il-2 Sturmovik Cliffs Of Dover: BoB -> ok. so far.
Il-2 Sturmovik Cliffs Of Dover: BoM -> ?

"Storm of War" would have been definately the better choice.

Whatever happened to the rolling stock and locomotives you were working on Foo'bar?

Cheers, MP

They will be implemented when time is left for doing it. At the moment there are more important things to do first.

Hey Black 6.

Appreciate you keeping us aware of what is going on.

Has the patch for Cliffs of Dover been put on hold until after the release of the Battle for Moscow ad-on?

No, there are other reasons

I have a question: Will the COOP interface be fixed in the upcoming patch?

Thanks for you reply. But just to be clear, are we likely to see the patch for CLoD released before the battle for moscow?

As in, will work on the patch resume sometime soon?

+1 I'd like to know too

I can not say more than Ilya said here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27926

We can not leave the game without the support, the patch will be released regardless of the development of the sequel.

As soon as the good news - I'll let you know immediately.

Thank you for the info about the patch B6.
The future for this sim though is looking gloomy though :(

Thx for all your support B6.

Will we get the patch either before christmas or before the end of January?

If its not till the end of January I can bang some overtime in at the weekends.

Why? We will have a patch, we will have a sequel, so what's wrong?

So i see no problem, also.

Sorry to push it but can we expect the patch for Xmas or should we expect the patch next year?

Well, I think it's lost in translation somewhat, but B6 said "the patch will be released regardless of the development of the sequel." which could be construed to mean that there might not be a sequal at all... (Which means we'll all be flying 109Es and the Spit Ia until we all lose interest or go back to 1946!)

No the sequel has been confirmed stop stirring the pot!!

Thanks for keeping us informed BlackSix.

Have to say though that I'm more concerned about this unexplained delay (not due to coding issues or finances we have been told) than about some of the other panics that have flared on the forums in the last year.

I understand the incessant pressure from members here for news, but all too often the devs seem to end up shooting themselves in the foot by making some announcement, creating anticipation and excitement and then...squandering that excitement and enthusiasm by not handling whatever delays or difficulties are encountered very well.

The current situation is a good example. The information blackout as to the true situation probably has good reasons behind it, but as public relations it is pretty disastrous.

I realise there is an element of 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' here, but as a fan of this game it is discouraging to see good news and good will too often squandered by poor communication of the (often inevitable) difficulties encountered in developing complex software.

---really wanted to make it clear that the above isn't any kind of criticism of BlackSix and his attempts to keep us informed, for which I'm as grateful as anyone. It's more the decisions higher up the chain that cause the problems

The message is positive, there will be a patch + there will be a sequel, independently from each other. Taking into account the modular nature of this simulator, it's also very logical that they work effectively on both fronts.
Don't worry, be happy!

Yes, you understood correctly. But I did not say anything about the modular structure. This question is closed before the announcement.

Mate, I'm not stirring the pot. I'm voicing an unbiased interperetation of how SOME USERS might read BlackSix's post. Perhaps "Which means" should have said "Would mean". Jeez.

There are some chances to make a beta version later this year. I would not wait for the final patch, but this is my personal opinion. This is not official information.

I feel very great pressure on this issue.
When Ilya has announced a new content patch (18 November) it was impossible to predict subsequent events.
I think now that the best solution would be total silence. Rumors - this is much worse than no information.

Ok B6

Understood

No news is good news.

So true.. And this forum, like no other, generates more rumors than Paris Hilton blog! ;)

Keep up the good work BlackSix.. And know that most of us know that you are not responsable for the rumors people generate from reading in and around what you actully said!

Understand and agree. Thanks.

Interpretation time! When you say "I did not say anything about the modular structure", does that mean that the sequel may or may NOT be a stand-alone expansion to CloD and maybe even a totally separate game?

Quit laying the foundation of rumours! :D

Honestly Robtek, I'm just curious.:)

We all are, but it seems we won't find out yet.

Really? Well first you need a patch to fix the game so you have working game to place a sequel into, and if you hadn't noticed they wont talk about an issue that isn't coding or financial etc but its put everything on hold maybe even till next year.
That sounds gloomy to me.
Sorry but i cant help think that especially after the Epilepsy Filter fiasco.

This means that I'm not ready to confirm any facts about the sequel.

Ok thanks for the answer BS.

Hmm...so basically "Battle of Moscow" might be any type of module (expansion, sequel, stand-alone expansion etc.), interesting but also a bit disconcerting.

Does Black Six mean he is not READY to confirm -- or that he is not ready to CONFIRM. One implies he can confirm but isn't; the other he is but CAN'T. God, now I'm really bummed, out of airspeed, altitude and ideas, as empty as Ms whats-er-name's orifice;).

I agree addman... with all the negative rumours going around I'm not sure why they can't say wether or not the sequel will be standalone, and/or merged installation. This is the problem....people are suggesting that work has stopped on COD and nothing they are doing to the sequel will apply to COD. Which doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I can't see the developers cutting their own throat with that action, but if that were correct the community would have a reason to be really p*ssed.

I can understand BS's hands are tied, but Luthier should clarify the situation, if he can't the development has bigger problems than I had hoped.

Dude I speculate that it will get confirmed if if its an expansion. If its stand alone, no confirmation.

Well we have it in Black and White that there will be no dynamic weather in CLOD, but it will be in BOM so they cannot be compatible. Cliffs Of dover is binned, it will never be what we were told it would be, its been a beta for the more profitable BOM. We have been cheated.

None of what you say makes any sense if both games use the same game engine and developer, but Luthier's answers to the last questions were so vague it makes it easy to subscribe to that gloom and doom theory.

I agree. Black 6 saying "I wouldn't wait for the next patch" is pretty grim.

I would take it as read that CloD has been abandoned. As as tree points out, if dynamic weather will not be "back dated" to CloD then it will not be compatible with the Moscow game.

Fixed that for ya

awkward?

Now things are starting to get out of hand!

i would appeal to everyone not to jump to conclusions on the basis of absolutely no evidence.

Tree, I interpret Luthier's reply about dynamic weather to mean that it will be introduced in the sequel and not in any of the ongoing COD patches. Nothing in his reply about whether the Moscow game will be compatible with COD or not...but as they've previously said it will be then I'm sure the weather will be usable in COD too.

lol.............

And people wonder why Luthier doesn't communicate more often...

Hang on. Why did tree get banned pointing out the truth?

Seriously. Black 6 has indicated we should not wait for the next patch. It is starting to sound like the development of CloD has been shelved indefinitely.

Censorship of the rightful anger customers feel about this situation will only further anger long time loyal members of the community.

Too much speculation and too little observation lead to big mistakes.

Re-read Luthier's replies to questions 1, 2, 6, 11, 17, 20 here:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?p=368526#post368526


then watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0GW0Vnr9Yc

lol @kendo65 you got it absolutely right :)

this discussion right now is just nonsense imho. He've stated very clear, that they are working on the patch and in my reading BlackSix was talking also very clear about a tentativbely release of a Beta Patch for this year.
Not to wait for an official patch just means, that the time between Beta and official patch may be too long to wait for the OFFCIA one to become live (and therefore go with the Beta patch)

At least thats my reading of it

Unfortunately until B6 CAN say something or Luthier clarifies the situation it will always be clear as mud.
We've waited a year or more now lets wait a couple more weeks when hopefully the information will be forthcoming and then make a decision.
To be honest i feel the the Moscow sequel is dead in the water regarding sales until CloD is up and running ,so they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not fixing CloD.
Lets wait a wee while longer for more information.