Hoax? it would be a Hoax if we got a potato instead of a game, I understand english might not be your first language.

Most people got the software they wanted, it just needs fixing, I am amazed at the things people complain about, I have had plenty of games in my time that didn't run well on release, crashed all the time, they needed loads of patching, COD doesn't sound like the biggest offender in history at all.

To Black Six & Luthier,
Many thanks for the information on the problems the team are facing at present and enlightening us as to why it has taken ,and will take more time still.The additional complexity of the new product over the il2 1946 series is now more understandable.I am glad to hear the BoM release will be merged with CloD ,this also makes it clear that the existing known issues with the present release wiil be fixed before any seqel .
Fellow forum Members
In the past as others do I have vented my views about the state of the release::-x & understand why some forum mebers feel frustrated.
I am now looking foreward to the eventual rectification and resulting patch(s).
I belive now would be a good time to put it behind us and be more positive about the games future as any further venting is only repeating what many others ,including me, have already said again & again & again &..........:rolleyes:
Were not there yet but closer than we were before:-)
PS:Luthier
Please look it no a better Coop Gui as a lot of members would like this changed.;)

For those of you doubting the 1 year / aircraft timeframe;

I've been working with FS aircraft for the past 4 years-- and worked with dozens of payware companies.

Generally, an aircraft is pushed out in ~3 months, and can easily take up to 4-6. Tubeliners for FS take even longer (systems coding is not easy).

Note, that this is with a full dedicated team, working one ONE aircraft-- for an already established sim with well-documented features.

However, we have the added advantage of not worrying about; damage models, LoD's, damage states, components, 100% accurate collision boxes, etc, all of which are incredibly important in CloD

It is completely reasonable to use at least 6-8 months per aircraft in development then + testing it and making sure it flies according to specs.

@ Force10 - A game I waited and waited for nearly 10 years to arrive - Stalker Shadow of Chernobyl - I bought a whole new system with Windows Vista for it only to find the exe crashed within seconds of launch on vista until the first patch - by which time several friends had ruined the story for me!

Rise of flight wasn't too great at launch either and took a year to be patched to a decent stage.

Eitehr way though, comparing CloD now to CloD at launch and it ahs come a hell of a long way and promises to continue to grow and bring us all new things!
V

Maybe a nice pic will bring this thread a bit more ON topic... let's hope so

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e35/Aukieboy/rata.jpg

Yes, English in not my first language. And yes, you understand me perfectly what I want to say.

:mad:

Nice Rata. Release the patch when it's ready...

Cobra

Brace yourself to be called a liar or worse..

Why?

Because self proclaimed experts who have never done any of this type of work have already spoken and determined that it does not take that long to do. And the only way it could take that long is if 'you' are

1) a liar
2) not managing your team very well
3) stupid
4) all of the above

Just a little heads up!

But I not being one of those do want to thank you for providing some insite as to how much effort does go into doing what you do! S!

did you really just pre-empt your answer 'before' I replied?

By rights any game that ever had a patch was broken to some extent, yes 7 years development obviously wasn't enough time but I guess UBI put the screw down on them to release and the public were getting anxious.

You know, in Quebec, many years ago the Goverment passed a legislation
forbiding any kind of TV advertising aimed at kids...No more raging heartpounding ads with planes and cars flying around like magic....They were not hoax...They were called: misrepresentative of the real attributes of a specific toy...Therefore causing a loooooooooooooooooots of disapointements, crying and whining, even though the Parents paid big money for those toys.
The Makers like Hasbro , Mattel and all the others opposed this law by stating that they were just showing what could be done in certain situations, and with lots of illegal pills of course. But the fact is, even though kids are whiners by nature, and uneducated young brats for many of them, the court ruled that you just cant advertise a product that wont do what is ''promised'' by the understanding of this particuliar clientele. Even if it is obvious for a grown and intelligent average person.

;)

No kidding. These videos prove that the game is in a playable condition unlike some others say. He would not play online 4-6 days a week if the game would not be playable.

"Not in a playable condition" and "stutteting enough to be considered "bad gameplay"" are different things aren't they?

Then even if it is a "bad gameplay" for you at the same time it is not a "bad gameplay" for 2000+ people listed on the ATAG statistics page http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/content.php
All these people are not forced or paid to play there and do so only because they have "good gameplay" and therefore not shelved the game.

These are 2 links to some factual proof. People who emotionally complain here do not need any facts they need to share emotions to feel better. I can perfectly understand their frustration and feeling pity if their PC can handle only 2+ years old RoF and ArmA2 (speaking of sims) or low-detail/low-visibility distance/small maps BF3 which is console oriented in the 1st place. But I can not understand why they are too lazy to optimise their systems (or upgrade if absolutely necessary - 2.6GHz is no go btw) to go online and have the same fun now while the devs are slowly working on patches.

However I just had an idea why it happens. I guess the "old men" from Il-2 time became too mature to go through all this system optimisation, etc. which they did 10 years ago (I was flying in 16bit(!) colour 1024x960 with mip-map and texture settings on low in drivers to get 25-35 fps lol. Anyone remembers that there was 16bit colour setting in Il-2 instead of normal 32bit? :) ) The younger audience is not prepared to put any effort into their system often too as they got used to consoles. They will never know how much fun it was to make MSFS run without stutters 10 or 7 years ago form a RAM-Drive )) Tweaking was always needed with sims: Warbirds, MSFS, Il-2, ArmA1, ArmA2, RoF on release date, etc., etc., and the reason is usually a huge visibility distance multiplied by details level.

I hope moderators will continue their good job of separating facts from emotions and lies. The latest is prohibited by forum rules btw :)

Just for the record , the word is WHINING not Whinging , and theres a lot of it going on here ... Luthier should create a tiny violin that plays during the updates just for those people . Look , it's 50 bucks ok ? It ain't like you paid countless thousands !The sim plays fine and quite smooth on my GTX570 nvidia .Maybe my 16GB of ram are helping out a bit .

BlackSix:
Hear, hear...

to end discussion on that matter, i had a friend who asked me this christmas to make him a pc. he ended up buying a 2500k 8 gb ddr3 16000hz and one 560Ti, in exchange i was given the right to de-virginize his hard drive with il-2 COD. tha pathetic performance who came form that pc. wich for me high budget, pretty much left very clear that the problem is not on my pc. On the other hand bf3 " a game made for consoles" actually was pretty playable, guess what both have in common? they both say in the box that these pc should work.

:-|

Nothing new on the western front.

Fantastic update
 

Great update. Well put!

And I can't wait to die a horrible, flaming death in one of those I-16's

Just wondering if there'll be an MC200 to keep the Fiat G50 company some day .. ?

Just so you both know, my set-up runs the game fine with all settings very high offline. I have to lower the buildings detail for London. I previously had a 5770 which was also fine, but only on medium settings, and London was a no- fly zone.

For multiplayer I lower the settings to High all round and have no more problems than the chaps with top of the range gaming pc's, so you don't have to upgrade very far to have a very playable experience.

Back to topic - The I-16 looks fantastic, and brings back very pleasurable memories, so I've changed my mind and am now very much looking forward to the sequel.

Thanks for the update B6. :)

Funny, my system seems to play it quite well.

Please be serious.

This place has become a playground. I better sign up for the thought police before I'm snuffed.

im pretty sure even the motherboard he has his the same as yours. FPS wise it was good, over 50. but the stuttering rendered it unplayable. every time you clsoed in a plane the game stuttered.

That was fixed ages ago.

no. this was tested the 22nd of december. and i still have htis problems. i could make a video..... oh wait, fraps doenst work with clod.... probably a safety measure.

Pupo - you need the latest version of fraps which runs absolutely fine, the old ones don't run in CloD just like they don't run in some other newer games.
V

Thanks B6 and Luthier for this update.

Very nice that little Rata. Keep up this good work. Now its much clearer for me.

Great!!!:-P

Doesn't happen on my system, positive you are running the latest version?

That I-16 amazes me. Not the model, which I expect to be a well done work of graphics, but the plane itself. Men (and perhaps a few women... Litvak comes to mind) took that thing up against Bf 109's???

Bravery beyond compare.

Edit: On performance, the game has run fine for me well before the latest patch. Fairly beefy system... i5 750 at 3.6ghz, NV 570, 8 GB RAM, SB X-fi, but hardly super state of the art. If you haven't turned down texture size from Original to at least High (or even Medium), then you need to unless you've got over 1.5 GB available VRAM. I've found the texture slider to be more important than the resolution in terms of smooth play.

Lydia Vladimirovna Litvyak flew Yak-1s.

Well, if this is the case than the game will never 'work' for you as it will never work for Tvrdi, Furbs, Tree and a few others.

I think that this game is not for everyone. E.g. I gave up on MSFS when could not figure out all the controls settings and make it work without stutters. It is fine. And it was my own choice.

Due to its complexity this diamond will never be 100% polished. It would be naive to expect it. Games that do not have this much ambitions in complexity and details (e.g. BF3, WoT, World of Planes) may better suit players who are not prepared to put efforts into fine-tuning, testing, tweaking, etc. Buying a new PC is not everything ;) I am happy with 35-45 fps, no stutters on my ancient HD4890-2gb. You can not seriously demand more from this card/game combination now.

CloD is 2013 game pushed by someone to be published to early and will run just fine without extensive tweaking on 2013 hardware.

BTW. The box was published by UBI. You can ask them on their forums why their marketing people always put those system requirements on boxes: min - just to start the game and make screenshots, recommended - to play offline only @20 fps with low-med setings. Marketing has nothing to do with development. This is developers forums, not UBI.

Hopefully a constructive post.....

That rig should run it just fine. Some background, I expect the 560Ti is a 1Gb card which is about minimum for this game but should run it ok at Medium settings with possibly a few downward tweaks in some areas. Please don't quote minimum specs from the box because we know at this time they don't deliver much if at all and as far as very high settings are concerned 1C declared a long time ago it would be a very high/futuristic spec PC that could run it all out. Also bear in mind that medium settings in this game compare very well wth the old IL-2.

Presumably you ensured that any antivirus was set to 'allow', e.g. not scan, files from the game folders when they were opened. And any other 'utilities' that would interfere with gameplay were stopped or set to 'allow' gameplay. Things like Windows/other update facilities turned off, etc.

So, what antivirus/firewall is he running and how is it set to accommodate gaming?

You don't give three vital pieces of information:-

Screen resolution
Detailed Game settings
Nvidia control panel settings used in the game (either default or for Launcher.exe if you created a game profile for it)

These would be helpful.

I am a little concerned that we haven't heard mention of the AI being addressed. The misconception from a lot of folks here is that people that are "whining" are having performance issues. Other than CTD's, the game runs smooth for me but being an offline player I am really hoping they are working AI etc.

They said in an earlyer update it's being worked on, you might have also noticed a thread opened speciffically asking for community input on AI issues.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28747

as i said, the pc was de-virginized with Clod. so it had nvidea drivers and COD installed. not even anti virus.

it was 1080p wich is todays standard.

detail game settings, i started with full graphics ( wich was utopian even i recognize that), and downgraded all the way to my settings wich are the minimum effective settings ( as you may know some settings if put to low cause more stuttering than otherway around)

default nvidea settings.

Not to sound like a bitch, but I couldnt care less for a sequel. Why dont you use all your teams to focus finishing cliffs of dover and making it into one of the best ww2 sims ever? Dynamic campaign, good A.I, no stuttering, more realistic colors and shadows, fixing the radio. Red Baron 3d has an amazing dynamic campaign, why cant that be recreated?

Simply put, finances.

Apart from when I get involved with clouds, ground dust or any other bugged particle effect my system can quite happily run it at almost full switch but I do run 1680*1050 so that will be helping. My actual settings are everything maxed with SSAO, VSync and Epilepsy filter off and I average 44fps (I was averaging 57fps until a few patches back) on Black Death. I have no issues with stutter closing in on enemy aircraft whatsoever even though I'm pushing the settings too high for my gfx card.

Thank you for the update.

I am a bit o whiner myself... but this crap reached a level where I am all feed up about some of the reposes in this forum.

Button line is that yes, we were kinda cheated... Yes, they have done wrong to launch an unfinished product thinking they would be able to solve the problems/bugs in a useful time line. But all of this is past... Learn to live with it and let the team work!!! Please leave all the whines for the upcoming patches or sequels if things go wrong again...

Regards.

PS: I am so glad I have bought and joined the RoF community... Having a blast flying what a consider to be a state of the art simulation regarding graphics/complexity/performance ratio.

OK but that doesn't really help me as I still don't know exactly what the game settings are or what the nvidia default settings are for the 560Ti. Can you post screenshots of these, PM me if you like. The Game settings should have the Custom box checked to show all the settings and the nvidia panel will probably take two screenshots because I expect you'll have to scroll down.

If you buy the sequel, all new features, improvements, objects, aircraft etc. will automatically appear in CloD. So....you will get the best ww2 sim ever but it'll be the combination of 2 products.

1c are also working on patches to improve CloD before the sequel arrives so all is good.:grin:

I thought you'd gone Tvrdi? You said eariler you were leaving the forum. Please. Pretty please. Give us a break for a while won't ya? I can only take so many negative waves in a day you know.

Thanks for the update.

Even AAA titles don't have 1/2 the complexity outside of geometry rendering and visuals that goes into flight sims of this ambition.

I'll continue to support you as long as you support your products. I'd hate to see this genre die.

You just don't want to understand. It's obvious that a one year development for a single aircraft is not a viable way to develop a simulator. Most add-on devs for FS do it on their spare time and do not have a professional project management background,so each team or software house has its times.

Maddox Games is a small company, that's why they need a more pro-active and efficient planning. 7+ years of development and an incomplete product are an unequivocal sign of poor line managing.

It's not whining, it's about the freedom of being able to submit constructive criticism to help,cos there are a lot of professionals here that can help,without getting all the hysterical reactions we see here.

Proper whiners are everywhere, and you won't change their attitude by being aggressive towards them,just ignore them and let everyone have their say.

no. i cnat send oyu anything. this was a one day test. wont happen again so no point.


pheraps when the next patch comes out i will ask the guy to test again...

thanks for the initiative to try to help, i appreciate it

Excellent reply sir. Very level headed & well put. Just wish CloD would run; period & not crash randomly. Before I left the forums, having rolled back, uninstalled, reapeat & sent the then 'luthier' the error reports on more than one occasion & never had a response. As for buying a 2nd copy for LAN; it has NEVER worked.

I left the forums because of the awful, child-like bitching but as a result, am left with copies of a non-playable sim. I was optimistic for a good long while but I'm guessing I'm an unlucky one as ppl obv are getting enjoyment out of a sim that, for me, is great right up to the point to turning it on.

I didn't waste my time reading past page 4. Same old crap. I'm not sure which is worse; the sniveling or the sniveling about the sniveling.

How many of you guys come here every day or nearly so? Can you guys not read between the lines?

Let me spell it out for you, because Luthier won't say this about his old friend. Oleg failed. He was not able to get Clod to a salable condition in time to save it (in the real world there are deadlines), so they had to sell it like it was. Luthier is the guy who is going rescue IL2 for the future, and I for one believe that he can. (and don't ask me to quantify that, I just have the feeling) So why don't we bitch a little less and support a little more? Shooting the messenger does not change the bloody message!

That said, thank you for doing a thankless and nearly impossible job Black Six. Have a nice big glass of vodka and know that the majority appreciate you. (same for Luthier and team)

AoA,we're all entitled to our opinions,you always bring things a notch down for some reason.

Luthier hasn't managed things properly and still isn't,that's my personal opinion,which happens to be backed by FACTS,not TALK.

I'm not saying he's not gonna fix things,but at this pace this new series will never be complete,like they didn't manage to complete IL-2 in 10 years,because all they cared for was adding more planes and leaving vast parts of the sim incomplete or not to a unified standard. It's sad to see this is happening again with the "new managing",and god knows if I hope they're gonna prove me wrong,cos I really think they're incredibly talented,but lacking a serious strategy or vision.

If you can't cope with opinions that differ from yours,maybe it's time yo go out for a breath of fresh air.

And yet IL2 was the best WW2 Sim ever to hit the markets. Maybe you should check your standarts here, Stern, and get a little reality check.

Or even better, as once again you appear to be much better in the know then everybody else, start your own Sim company to make us all happy in regards to WW2 Simming.

JACKPOT:grin:

MG needs to define a reasonable amount of development time and work backwards to define the correct amount of complexity in order to come up with a decent schedule. This "seat of the pants" type of development is totally unprofessional and not worthy of a company doing full time work.

Creating a full interior/exterior 3D CAD model showing all internal structure should only take 2 people 3 weeks. Where this other months of work is being done the reader can only guess.

Trying to say that the developers need factory blueprints of every inch of a ww2 aircraft in order to create an internal/external 3D model shows how over engineered and impossible they have made the task. Factory blueprints are actually notoriously unrelaible and inaccurate..they themselves would have so many updates/revisions that you would have a diffucult time matching the prints to an actual aircraft. The aircraft were produced in batches and there could be a wide variance between batches of the aircraft dimensionally, structurally, etc. This does not even take into account the different factories producing the planes-----US and German planes were bad enough and I can't even imagine the differences in Soviet aircraft.

The only way to get "accurate" dimensions of an aircraft would be to physically measure it. The problem with 70 year old aircraft is that they have probably been scrapped together at some point and are actually inaccurate of a typical example. This has come up with examples of aircraft from MG and others making WW2 aircraft models-such as plastic model companies.

Sorry just had to vent about these opinions of accuracy of models and time to create them and a lack of time management.

Wow Soviet aircraft! That will really make Cliffs of Dover a finished game. I guess all the game was missing was the IL-2. . . after all it's in the name. Once we have all these Soviet aircraft then the online campaign in Cliffs of Dover won't suck and we'll be able to play an online mode that isn't 30 people trying to fly as low as they can so they can use that famous "historically correct" tactic of "negative altitude advantage".

Why are people cheering on Battle of Moscow? It gets released, we have another map and some more flyable planes. . . that doesn't make the game we already spend money on fun does it? I bought this game hoping my friends and I could recreate the Battle of Britain online with other like-minded people. All we've got right now is a pathetic dogfight server that feels like the Brits and Germans decided to only fight 30-50 aircraft at a time, within as small a space as possible.

Am I taking crazy pills here and don't know it, or should people be asking for the devs to finish what they started instead of making another 1/2 finished game? Will we ever get an online gameplay mode that isn't just about whoever got the best kill to death ratio? Or are the devs at MG happy with their product's single player and multiplayer aspects being "satisfactory" . . . according to 1994 standards?

Wow did you even read the post, the graphics modellers don't fix the AI, nor do they do the recoding to fix bugs, some of you just seem to ignore what you are being told, if the Devs were happy do you think they would be spending all this time recoding graphics sounds etc to improve multiplayer and single player :confused:

I cant play the game at the moment always crashes, but at least the devs are still working on it, I still hold out hope that they will nail the problems down and get the game up to a level of quality that we saw with Il2, its obvious that this is going to take a while, so I just fly ROF while waiting ;)

All you die hard fans who say you wouldn't have minded waiting another year have got to be out of your freaking mind. What is stopping you from waiting now and coming back in a year or so. UNBELIEVABLE

Looks fanatastic! i'm drooling already.

BTW, didn't the Red airforce fly defiants, whimpys and Condors .. I think ,YES! :grin:

He111.

I wonder for how long I'll fly this Mustang, while waiting for this game to get rdy for action.

http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.ph...6&d=1327155684

Nice pic, but I've been flying Spits, 109's, Hurri's, 110's, Blenheim's, Ju's, in actions in COD, over decent terrain for the last eight months. Although Spits against Warthogs doesn't interest me that much.

Ataros,

i'll have to disagree with you there. you have made some well informed posts here, so i'll try and summarise why

first, let me say i am seriously underwhelmed by the p*** poor content of the "update" just released. other then it being nice to have somebody like B6 actually communicate with the fan base now, the "progress report" regarding the fixing of important and much overdue CoD issues is essentially zilch !

iirc its been over 4 or 5 months now that this "soon to be released major rebuild of the gfx engine" was announced, and ever since then the 1C production house has gone into hibernation it seems, even making worrying statements some months ago that "all work on the patch had been halted" (i paraphrase, but most here will remember that luthier statement some months ago). And all we still get now is "we are working on it" ?
whatever goodwill there was in the first months of the last years release fiasco, this has now long evaporated with me (and many others here), and I’d lable myself as one of the most ardent oleg/il2 supporters, with many who have passed through this forum here having the scars to prove it.

in short, its about 12 months since release time, and other then people with monster pc's, its still barely playable right now and has way to many major bugs to make it an enjoyable sim "out of the box". Maybe to some here the poor gfx engine performance giving v low fpsec and STILL many micro-stutters can be put down to “2011 pc complexity in programming” , but most other problems cant be excused by that. yet we are being told fixing many of the other bugs is being delayed by the gfx engine rework (while 2/3 of the 1c staff seem to already be working on the next sim). that logic doesnt compute with me, sure have a few iddle object designers work on moskow buildings, but all the rest should be still hard at work fixing and completing fiasco nmber 1.

For ex the poor visually impression of the virtual southern English landscape we are supposed to fly over, it still doesnt look or feel like any english landscape/scenery that I know (and yes I lived there for 6 years, so I do know). for ex fields and smaller roads in southern england would usually be lined by hedges, and NOT lines of trees as might be the case for french roads (and is now done in CoD for England). In all these 12 months of delays with the perfornce patch, is there really not a single grafix designer in the 1C team who could have been addressing some of those visual issues ? it could be done in a few weeks by a team of 2 grafik artists, and it would completely change the feel of the game. and is there really not one person availble in the whole 1c team that can give us some basic ground AI activity like ambulances and refueling/rearming animations ? spice it up a little bro, you'd be amazed at what some eye candy does to keep the fans interested and patient.

Further there are still significant omissions for ex, no dynamic campaign, limited weather, no AI ground activity at airfields, minimal single missions, major problems with coops and crashes, some major errors like general AI aircraft behaviour and friendly AI control, some significant flight model issues in some of the allied planes, poor simulation of distant object visibility from cockpit (which shows NOTHING was learned from what was one of the main downfalls of the il2 series in the SIMULATION of ww2 pilot experience) , and many unfinished elements (still flying through trees eh).

I don’t mind if some of the grand ambitions have been postponed (driving vehicles, controlling ships, advanced tactical control in a dynamic campaign, full dynamic weather etc), but all the previous problems I listed should be solved by now 12 months after release imho. for a next gen sim that was for years promoted as being a quantum leap into "simulation realism", there is LOTS to fix and finish right now, before most of the current customers can get even interested in the next edition of il2. a few i16 pics and a vague "we'r working on it" just doesnt do it anymore, and having some well meaning fans jump on anybody that points some of this out doesnt solve it either.

btw, i was GIVEN a russian download version of CoD about 6 months ago (as a thank you for building a friends new pc), and i DELETED it, it was so unplayable on my system (and i dont have weeks to waste to fiddle with it to try and get it to run each time a micro patch is released on steam). i tried it again about 3 months ago (with all the steam updates) and it was still UNPLAYABLE (except if you just fly over water and limit yourself to air quake servers online), even if my pc is mid-range (i5 dual core, 4 gb ram, ati 5770 1 gb card, 27' monitor at 1920 x 1200, hotas, track –ir etc). to get such negative feedback from some of the most ardent and long term oleg supporters (having played il2 since its first demo almost 10 yrs ago) speaks for itself, there is something seriously rotten in denmark ! sure, for people with monster pc's (and there are a few here) they now get reasonable performance over land/cities, but that is the only exception (and they are the main posters of the video's you refer to) and for them it is also a very limited experience in flying online in dogfight servers that have nothing in comon with an unfolding historical BoB SIMULATION , for the rest of us its a pretty buggy game with poor performance, let alone speaking of wanting a decent unfolding BoB scenario with all its variety and complexity.

the key issue is to get a major rebuild of the gfx engine, so the overall performance of the game is up to scratch (forget about adding elements like dynamic weather which will significantly further stress our humble pc’s), and that is exactly what these updates should be focused on right now. If you’d want to keep people quiet while you are doing it, then give them some morsels to chew on, like a new BoB theater plane or warship, or fix some of the ai issues and flight models, don’t insult our intelligence by giving irrelevant trivia about the next installment you are planning to sell to your unsatisfied current customers. Btw I checked the BoB/CoD prices at my local game store yesterday because i still intend to buy a normal copy once it is fixed (so I don’t have to keep messing with the English dll and feel I am “contributing” like I did during the il2 series of releases), and the price is still 89$. But instead of giving you the money, I bought the latest installment of Call of Duty Modern Warfare for my nephew.and that about sums it up for me, simply not worth the money in its current state.

I’m an optimist, I can see the promised land, and have done so since oleg started putting this project together with his great ambitions. But all CoD-BoB is doing for me now is showing the POTENTIAL it has, not what it IS right now as an enjoyable playable game out of the box (unless you have an uber pc and ignore some very annoying omissions and irritating bugs). If some users are having thrills with it and like it, great, I am not here to tell them they shouldn’t (and i dont come here to make posts in that vein). but for many here like me, ignoring its many flaws and problems and pretending it is working well 12 months after release is a load of equine fecal matter being masqueraded as a black forest gateaux, it just don’t fly baby, however much i love oleg for what he has done over the years, and however keen i am on wanting BoB/SoW to succeed !!

Disclaimer: just my frustrated perspective 12 months after release, your personal mileage may vary depending on pc hardware used, and on your standards of what a well rounded completed game should be in 2012.

+1 @ zapatista!

We can't change the current state of the game. They are 'working on it'.

What they can change is the frequency of updates. Hopefully we will now start to get one every Friday, better to get an update which disappoints some than nothing for weeks on end.

My advise is, if like me you are not happy with the current state of the game, stop checking every day and pop back once a week on Friday to read the news. Sooner or later we'll get the next beta and lets hope it fixes some of the main problems.

If the news blackouts start again they can't complain that the forum becomes full of frothing madness again.

I find COD very playable and enjoyable. On line rocks and I find that it is extremely immersive.

Getting onto servers like ATAG has consistently been one of the best on line experiences I have had. One of the most repeated questions on teamspeak seams to be "What exactly are people complaining about?"

At the moment I am very happy with the sim and things are only going to get better! :)

That is some very good advice.

Hopefully one of the things that the patch does address is the consistency with which the sim runs on different peoples rigs.

I gave up on reading this thread after it started it's rapid descent with insight from Aero90 and other obtuse supporters.

I appreciate the update and I don't care too much about the waiting. There are plenty of other things in life to to - if you can't find any then may I suggest ending yours because it's obviously FUBAR.

I am sure B6 and Luthier will also not get past page 5, it's a total waste of time, the opening post alluded to this but despite appeal there was no respite. Thanks you idiots.

Thank you zapatista.

Here is the real substance of that post, the rest is just a wall of text of the usual whingeing.

Il-2 was a cornerstone in combat simulation,but it's still a rough diamond.
I dunno whether you use modded versions of it now,but the guys tha work on it on their free time did wonders with it, applying modifications that are relatively simple but add so much to the game longevity!

Oleg & co. delivered an incredible product,but there never was an immersive GUI, FMs were rough and incomplete as well (no flexing airframes,no wake turbulence,approximate ground handling and behaviour to name a few..) and graphics have always been a bit dull.

It still managed to be the best combat sim product,but merely because there wasn't much competition in the way.

I have a full time job that keeps me busy enough,but I confess I'd like to take on such venture, the only paramount condition is to select the right team,because working on this is a labour of love, and a leader must be able not only to manage,but motivate and provide a view both for his employees and his customers.

I agree with many of your thoughts here, and so much easier for me because that was a lot of typing you did. I think many of us long term supporters are left scratching our heads with the 1C priorities concerning this sim. It breaks my heart to admit that I have zero interest in the next sequel. 1C has severely damaged their perceived capability and credibility in my mind, and may be en route to financial disaster. I think they should have been focused on getting this sim running for the masses before working on a sequel.

So your answer to secure the finances of a company you believe is on rocky ground is to suspend any further revenue earning projects? the dead horse of why COD was released in the shape it was has been flogged into oblivion, most reasonable people have already come to terms with it and are just patiently waiting for the upcoming fix....this is where the whole debate 'should' end, 1C have every right to continue in their business just like every other company (airbus A380 have cracked wings, should airbus pull production of all other aircraft?), working on patches does 'not' put food on the table.

The "debate" should have ended 300 posts ago. Unsubscribing from this waste of time...

It's about reputation bongo,we're fans,but there are thousands of potential customers out there tha might be put off by the awful reviews and the lack of a clear vision and months (or years!) of wait.

Squash the bugs,sort your core product out, THEN work on other projects. I'm sure there are still a lot of things that can be fixed and/or implemented in CoD in terms of 3d modelling.

What I believe is that others feel the same about the situation...if sales are poor, it didn't have to be.:grin:

Luthier's explanations sounds credible, but they only explain a part of the issue. What he says about the amazing amount of time to accomplish the same things, or slightly improved ones, is indeed true, and we see it in everyday's life and work. And in video games imo the complexity increases exponentially with resolution, not in a linear way.
But (there is always a "but" :-)), in this equation Complexity is only one factor, the others being Good Management, Careful Resource Planning, Quality Control ... and as we use to say, a good explanation (excuse) doesn't replace a timely delivery, with the expected quality.

Anyway - no alternatives - I encourage the team and Luthier to work hard and finish strongly, a strong finish will make all of us forget the miserable start.

Cheers,
Ins

Tosh! the reviews are already out there and theres nothing that can be done, what we don't need are the constant whingers here adding to the damage, to be hones appart from a couple of ships I don't think theres any need for more 3D work in COD, including the Italian stuff was a waste of time that could have been better spent making more LW and RAF stuff flyable, I don't care if it takes a year (since release) to fix COD....the whole point it is being fixed and the devs have made it crystal clear what's involved and why, most of the whingeing is just a petty attempt to muddy those waters with bizarre speculation.

I make my point again that fixing COD isn't bringing funds in, whatever comparissons you want to make with 1C's strategy and Hitlers plans, 1C have no other choice but to work on something to make some more money.

Ah that old chestnut......thers others that seem to feel the same way I do.

Isn't that what Luthier just said?

Yes there are, and I hope that the plan all works out in the end...still scratching my head though:grin:

Were all in the same boat, why some people believe wild speculation is going to help leaves me scratching my head.

Can I ask a stupid question? What is a memory leak? Plus how is it effecting COD? Two questions then.

the game is putting stuff in your PCs memory till its 'full' and your game is stopp running because it does not overwright the old stuff.

this is happening very different for every users PC. This was 'introduced' with the last patch.



I personaly wondering why 1C deos not use the big benefit of STEAM and is releasing small patches with lesser fixes (not that there are none ;) ). Sure, it would need that someone is working on these smaller things.
As examples
Bf110 canons
Ju88/Blenheim bombbaydoors
Ju88/BR20 compassystem
Gunnerhandling

even FM/DM/CEM fixes for several planes are still worked over i hope.....


This focus on the "mother of all patches" is propably not the best decission for their reputation IMHO

the reason they are making a 'mother' patch is because the code for the whole graphics engine is being re-written, this would make small hotfix patches useless once the new engine is done which is a massive waste of time and resource, this has been extensively discussed.

It is also possible that the memory leak is gfx engine related and does not exist in the new code, but that we wont know until it's released.

so, as example, the opening of a bombbaydoor or a canon change in a plane are graphicengine related ?
strange, but than.......ok, lets wait.

every small patch they make will take time away from making the big fix which will address the important issues like optimization, CTD's, frame rates etc, these are the issues that affect larger groups, individual prefferences can have no priority in deciding what to patch.

now, THIS is an update, and a rather honest and realistic one.

thank you!

PS: I would prefer though that you would stop to keep pushing the "an aicraft alone it takes us one year" relative truth. Actually, building an aicraft up to IL2CoD standards it might take even 15-20 years to make, IF you're talking about how long it would take to a new born baby to do it. But for the 2012 game developing industry standard average modeller, it should't actually take more than a couple of months.

Mmmh what he said it's a bit of a clever formula: they're basically following EXACTLY the same path as IL-2,both in terms of positive and negative stuff. In five years' time we will have planes with a higher standard than the ones we have now (think about the Me109 in IL-2: a key aircraft that has never been substantially updated in 10 years,concentrating potential time and efforts to update it in project that nobody really cared about,like some obscure Russian planes), so we will have again a serious imbalance and a feeling of half-finished product.

They raised the bar of course,but they really need to look into standardisation of procedures.

Again,I want to be optimist and wait for the mother of all patches,I really hope I'll be proven wrong,but somehow doubt it..

In all honesty your bullying doesn't help either mate ;)

I think there's a lot of frustration overall,because I believe we all agree that the product is incomplete,what we disagree on is how the issue is being addressed really.

As Philip.Ed said, throwing fuel on the small fires more or less strategically lit up by whiners doesn't help,just try and ignore them :)

Obscure....lol, if you are Russian it's a fair bet Spitfires and P-51's are obscure.

I seriously doubt you will ever feel you have been proved wrong too ;)

Bullying? elaborate....

The point is the issue 'is' being adressed, the how's are irrelevant, it is beyond me how you are blind to the blatant anti 1C propaganda flung around by them.

Please see a date. :evil:



12-19-2010, 03:35 PM
merlin1 merlin1 is online now
Member

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 65
Default
Actually I agree with all of you. Just thinking, are all this candys (colour of the flames ect...) we reaily need now or when the game will be released... Many times we heard, on maximum settings we can play after few years from release date becouse todays hardware can not handle this game.

I do not want the game to which I'll need or spent a computer for 2000 + Eur. I assume that mr. Oleg knows this and is in a dilemma now, not for me, but for a lot of other potential users.

Once again.
Oleg and his team do a great job. No doubt ! He said, the game have a lot of bugs. Do not waste time on candys but the things that will make the game playible. This is just my opinion.
I love Il-2 very much, and I am very grateful to mr. Oleg some 10 years ..

Mysticpuma:
I love jour videos too... big thx.

rgr.



zapatista + 1.............

Guys what some of you dont seem to understand, and I think this has been said before......

The modellers have pretty much finished CoD content and them moving on to the sequel doesnt impact the current bugs and they need to be working on something to keep the series going. (and their jobs)

The code base for the sequel is the same code for CoD...

Dont quote me on this.... but.. When the patch comes out it will most likely have the same engine and most of the features from 'BoM' (or whatever you want to call the sequel) and some of those features will only be activated if you buy the sequel. As such, so will the new content be in the sequel too.

So what exactly do you think you will be loosing by them working on the sequel? A bit of content that will probably be added by 3rd party developers as originally intended????? I can wait, and I think a few of you need to be a little more patient. I have a pretty good feeling that it will be worth it. :)

What?

You seem to have a strange tendency to ignore the manner in which the whiners post thier "opinions".

come on man, you know what I mean.
For example, that first Russian jet we had, how much time went into it and how much was it actually used? Some of the stuff they made flyable took a considerable amount of time and was of little or no use, while they never fixed the Me109 shadow bug or improved the 3d model.
That's what I mean with an organised and effective planning of workload.

I still believe that primary meaning of a community is to collaborate, putting everybody's skills to use. Then we're all entitled to an opinion. Some people feel ripped off, and it's understandable, you don't wanna buy something and not being able to use it before a year, some people are happy with what they have and are hopeful about the future.

I'm not pessimist, just keep on seeing the signs of a development that is making the same mistakes the previous management did, that's it.

I also think they have every right to work on a sequel. I just think it was a huge mistake to announce they are working on a sequel and then post that certain features will be held out for the sequel. Given the state that COD is in, it would have been better to let us believe that they were completly focused on fixing the existing product. After a patch or two that fixes a lot things is released and things have calmed down, then announce you are working on a sequel.

They never said they are holding features back for the sequel, they said the big fix is so big that implementing more features will have to wait untill the sequel....big difference, no conspiracy there, no suggestions we are being held to any ransoms.

OMG. Actually, for once bongo, I agree with what you said. I did phrase that wrong. I should have said "won't make it until the sequel". Yes, no conspiracy, but still made a lot of folks unhappy...except you I imagine.

I guess I was thinking that because I was responding to Phat's observation when he said
"When the patch comes out it will most likely have the same engine and most of the features from 'BoM' (or whatever you want to call the sequel) and some of those features will only be activated if you buy the sequel"

Meaning, that the features will be there and just need to be unlocked by purchasing the sequel. Meaning held over. But thats just an observation and 1C never said it like that.

it's a good observation......maybe Phat can enlighten us?

Exactally

Which should have been clear to anyone who actully read what Luither said

+1

Yes I understand that modelers don't fix AI, but I also understand if the modelers and mission builders have all moved on to Battle Of Moscow, then the actual content support for CLOD has come to a stop. Is that what you would call a finished game? I know that patches to the engine will continue to be developed, since their sequel hinges on them as well, but are they going to do the same with BOM? Release a 1/2 finished game (Content Wise) and then move on to the next sequel?

To repeat, I have no issues with them fixing bugs, but what's the point if they never finish the heart of the game, the campaign, the single player, new multiplayer modes? I started a thread a year ago about the devs actually using their heads to attract customers. Instead of counting rivets on the bracket that holds the undercarriage to the wing spar, maybe they could have included new multiplayer game features, new features for the single player, and other things that would make the game fun. What's going to attract more players and make the game more fun? Having the correct font on the oil-pressure gauge, or having additional content and multiplayer modes that draws you into the game?

People (who are not belly-scraping rivet counters) are begging for something besides "dogfight server". Everyone I know who still playes the original IL-2 uses the "Moving Dogfighter Server Mod" or playes with "SEOW". People are begging for an SEOW style play mode, where everything you do matters to the end result of the game. The real players don't care about some stupid Kill/Death Stat, that's for the Sperglords who've never left their mom's basement. Give us a play mode where shooting down a plane, bombing a fuel dump, losing a pilot, strafing an airfield, or sinking a ship makes an impact to the actual game, not just "Red team has been shot down". Hell, give us a capture the flag mode, anything besides "fly at 30m dogfight".

If Cliffs of Dover were released nearly a year ago with a perfect engine, ran flawlessly, had no bugs, excellent performance. . . it still would have scored medium-low, because after you've tried 2-3 uninspired missions, got pissed at the campaign, and skimmed the ground in a dogfight server for an hour you're pretty much done with the game.

EDIT: If the Devs have no intention on finishing their work, they should at least make sure that the community has the tools and ability to finish it for them.

You left out a key part of Phat's quote

Which I think even you will admit changes things a tad

Which is how RoF does it.. Basically when RoF comes out with a patch, the patch contains all the new features (planes, scarfs, etc) but you will not be able to make use of any of those features until you go online and buy those features which in turn un-locks the code in the patch for you to make use of them.

True

The last time Luther spoke about this he said CoD sequals would follow in the footsteps of IL-2 sequals

Where you would have to allready own CoD and the sequal would be an addon which includes 'upgrades' and new 'features'

In this case BoM being the new featrues as in planes, maps, etc.

In the past that was a seperate CD/DVD, but what with STEAM involved, it could work much in the same way RoF does it.

To the Anti-Whiners
 

Remember these , guys ?
Shown more than 2 years ago. always WIP, but was comfirmed by Oleg at that time that would be part of the first release. Now, 9 months after release, are we even close in terms of visual quality at playable FPS?
Whining is not pleasant, but at least give some room for expressing disapointement...And please stop saying that only a couple of features were not
implemented...Look at those pictures..There are many more like those that were " used" to promote the game....until the last minute before release...

Salute !

S!

So..basically. Luthier & Team should release a WELL documented SDK for CoD and oh boy would the community do something with it. Sure not all top notch, but I think the best of them would be VERY nice. Problem solved. Eh?

AGREED
Nice shots by the way,,i wonder if will see this kind of beauty in our loved sim one day:cool: