CLOD features discussion and speculation (moved from Friday June 15-2012 update)
 

Oh bollocks to this. All this misplaced faith and trust. xxxxxxxxxxxx. This place is deader than tanktops.

Bye now.

No I don't work in one I just work as unpaid beta tester for all of them ... LOL! Anyway your idea of separate versions is brilliant. But as you say we know just 1% of the real issues.

Cheers!

Dont you think it would be better to use planes characteristics, flight model but environment and game structure (planes for money etc) from ROF ? Last time I have tried ROF and I couldnt belive when on 2560x1440 res i could play with at least medium settings and it looked beautifully... In that case everyone would be happy...

I woudnt lol

If i would write my opinion to that i would be banned!!

Agree robtek. :cool:

It's easy to run a game engine that only allows for 40 or so ground objects on the entire map at any one time.

If you would set up a ground battle on a quarter of the scale it shoud look like for the Western Front, that game would be impossible to play on the highest end machine available.

RoF is sparsely populated; that wouldn't wash for WW2 environment.

BTW, I have an older E8500-based PC (building a new one now). I can play IL2 CoD on higher settings than I can RoF. No-man's land is treachurous on my FPS. How can dirt, some ditches, and explosions be so demanding.

Don't get me wrong. I like both sims and, for me, both capture their respective historical periods well (though CoD green doesn't look very English to me, a Yank).

RoF is a nice little sim and it looks also nice and runs smoothly. However I do feel that RoF is a well matured product with little further evolutions to the future possible.

And although the FM is not bad it is definitely not the pinacle of FMs and has its flaws. I for my part think that the FM is not the biggest strength of RoF. Where it excels however is DM imho.

Yeah, I noticed how the 'updates' are very carefully worded so as to reveal as little as possible.

I thought they were carefully worded because some community members seem to have difficulty understanding the meaning of basic words and phrases like 'Hope', "would like", 'some time after', "maybe".

They seem to mix them up with words like "promise" and "definately" and then take it as a personal insult if their unfounded expectations are not met.

DING!!!!

Winner!!!!!!!

I think what he is saying is 15 months after its original release COD actually performs poorly unless you turn off the features that define it as the " next generation " of flight sim.

Or perhaps he meant as I always say " actions speak louder than the few ambiguous ,misleading, empty words offered. "

I was thinking about things like, "On the aircraft front, we’ve done virtually everything we wanted to do..." Which could mean virtually anything, depending on their whim at the time. I think it goes without saying by now that what They want to do and what We would like them to do are rarely the same thing.

If we were unified on what we all wanted I would agree with you but since the community isn't they have decided to follow there own plan of action.

+1

That usually is understand as "customer syndrome". Every speculation you put in your customer he will think it gonna be archived just the way he thinks! :-P

They aren't carefully worded: previous update threads or interviews have been careless in their wording, or the information divulged (in one of the Sukhoi threads here, Chivas and I reminisced over a 2009 Oleg interview in which a load of features were 'promised' about which didn't see the light of day. And by promised I mean flippant assertions such as 'X will be in the game, and Y will have this effect on it' etc). There is a difference.

One thing you should also point out is the difference between what is stated on the box vs. what Oleg may have said during an interview during the development of the game several years prior to the game release..

And how things can change during development that may change what Oleg said would be in the game..

In that some here clearly seem to think that what Oleg said in some interview is a legal binding promise that some how over rides what is ultimately advertised on the box at the time of release..

Than maybe, just maybe these whiners wouldn't be so upset if they only realized that a interview on the current status of the game AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVIEW is NOT a legal binding promise that one could or should be getting upset about

Because here in the real world S HAPPENS

its a tough road to walk, on one hand you want to talk about the game you are developing, on the other, you know that you are going to have to drop or hold off on something and someone is going to take that as a broken promise, I understand why devs clam up and dont want to say anything... apparently the internet is stone...

Quite right though it is a shame that the only thing that is accurate on the box is that an internet connection is needed to activate the thing.

Hood

I don't even have a box.

Hehe either you're screwed, or you'll just have to take what comes.

:grin:

Hood

Ah I see where I confused you..

when I said

'on the box'

I should have said

'on the box and/or official advertisements'

For example the 1C or ubi web advertisements, magazines, etc..

All in all the point that your missing here is that 1C and or Oleg can not be held responsible for something they said in an interview about the status of the game at the time of that interview. Even if they didn't go out of thier way to point out that 'things may change' between what he says now and the end product, in that all adults know that goes without saying

Also note there is more listed 'on the box' (or where ever you got it) than noting an internect connection is required..

Hope that helps!

S!

AoA, as correct as you are, at no point were such statements retracted. It's not that people are pretending they were misled: they genuinely believed that if they were told X would be in the game with no retraction of statement, and it wasn't, there are clear grounds to show a major element of misleading information.

The box or the website will in no way list every single feature in the game. With your logic, one has reason to grumble for features users aren't told about!


The hard fact is that users should have realised the team were dreaming prior to release, but unfortunately any prominent poster here was hoodwinked.

There's the classic case of the woman who kills her cat by putting it in the microwave when it's cold. There's nothing in the instructions to say this would happen, so she wins her court case.
With the information in Oleg's interviews in mind (which weren't retracted) there's nothing to say the team can't be held responsible. They're the only ones responsible.

Agreed 100%

I seem to recall a post in this forum just prior to release that stated what did and didn't make it into the final release.. wrt what had been talked about over the years of development. If you missed it, sorry bout your bad luck! But even if that is not the case, since they were never official stated, listed, advertised, and or promised said features there was no reason, need, and or requirement to retract them.

Hope that helps!

S!

Yeah right....post a link to this alleged post before release. Anyone else but Ace remember this pre-release post admitting all the things that were broken or missing from the game? Probably just a dream Ace had...

First of all, this must surely be a dream of yours, because the team never went through the interviews retracting what features they had claimed would appear in the game.
I'm still waiting for the proof, AoA. Not some ridiculous: "it's there, look for it, good luck!" smarmy post. Genuine, concrete, proof.
Frankly I don't think you've been round these forums long enough in the build up to the game to provide any kind of objective stance on the development, and perceptions in the lead up to the release.

Indeed, surely any information from a member of the team classes any information as official? Without a disclaimer in any interviews to say that such information is subject to change, anyone has reasonable grounds to question.

Haha exactly right.

Anyone read Animal Farm? In a year Ace will be telling us it's a dream the game was so poor on release, and that actually it functioned beautifully.

Your wait is over..

Luither said this about a month before the RU release of CoD..

link http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=114

Hope this helps!

Sorry Phat.. didn't see this until after I posted the proof phill requested.. I wont post anymore on it in this thread, if he or force want to reply, please feel free to PM me! S!

That obscure post #114 in a response to furbs on page 12 of a thread is not a sufficient warning. He did not state "what did and didn't make it into the final release" it was very vague in a response to clouds.

Nice try though.

Vague?

Hardly

Also Luithers reply in that post was NOT limited to frubs post.. I think if you read Luithers post again you will see it applies to all features mentioned prior to the release.

Which as I pointed out before, 'typically' goes without saying, but in light of some of the special members of this forum, Clearly Luither felt it had to be said for the special people of this forum

Hope that helps S!

PS per Phat's notice/request.. I recomend we take this to PM, assuming you have any more questions that need answering! S!

No need for pm's. We can see clearly from Luthier's post he didn't state what would or would not make it into the sim as you stated. I didn't see AI, no radio commands, Ainti epliepsy filter, trees you could fly through, etc. etc.

Ah good glad I could help! S!

Feel free to PM me if you have any more questions!

It's helpful, but ambiguous. At no point does he make any suggestion towards features which will be omitted, and as has been pointed out, there is no list of omitted features.

It's a post which people need reminding about though, but doesn't answer the question for the simple fact that Oleg talked of features which were never really discussed again. A map builder, which looked finished - for instance - which many took for granted would just be included.

Anyway, enough of this now. thanks for bringing this post up, as it was a good read :grin:

WOW.....how are people not getting that the 'ambiguity' is the reason there is no list, the whole point was to say that 'everything' is under review.....as in anything you could care to list is included in the 'blanket' statement.

Bingo!

We know that nothing specific was said. "Someone" here was telling us they did say what would and wouldn't be in the release. I'm not sure who said it....let me look....Oh, here ya go.


I guess we should have just considered the source and known it was fictitious.

Hello,

Something I dont really get though. What was Luthier's (1C) purpuse to show all those WIP things if in the end he did not have the intention or capabilty
to put it in the game ? Even as a patch ?

Sorry but I dont understand the reasons why...

Well I'm not sure where the idea that he has no 'intention' or 'capability' comes from, i think the 'long term' aim is to put everything showcased into the series, we may not see it all in COD but I believe new stuff will come with each new addition to the series which will also bring COD up to the same level....you know....just like the old IL2 series.

COD needs to be fixed first as it forms the engine for the new titles with the new features.

You miss the point: there are two sagas to the development of CloD as we know it (by that I mean the current DX version of the game):
-the original, pre announcement, updates by Oleg
-the updates, post announcement, by both Oleg and Luthier. (By announcement I mean the first ones with shots over shrek Island)

Luthier's comment was about what he had spoken about: thus the second category. Everything Oleg spoke about and showed in the first saga was either tangible, or treated as a given feature. For instance, he said X would be in the game, and this was never spoken of again.

The ambiguity in question is what Luthier is actually referring to. It's very easy to assume he meant the whole saga of CloD, but really if you were to travel back to the time when Furbs asked that question, it's very likely the previous 'promises' had escaped their attention, and they were thus talking about everything that was in the limelight post announcement.
Features like the map-builder, as I said, were treated as a given to appear in the game. Luthier may have made a post somewhere within a 70 page update topic to say this feature might not be included, but it certainly doesn't support any claim that a feature by feature list of what's not included every surfaced.

And certainly due to the ambiguity which I clearly emphasised, and which Luthier's comment doesn't do justice to, there is every reason for someone to feel misled.

I honestly don't feel the team did intend to mislead at all. However, given that they are working on a sequel already, it poses the question of when these features will be added in. I'd certainly sooner see an SDK and map builder than another scrap in an area I don't care about.

Oleg is gone and his promises with him, this got dumped on Luthier who has to make good of it.

That's good and I would trust those feelings.

Not really...see above

I see nothing wrong with all the 'promised' features making their way in via the new titles, wether the theatre is anything 'you' care about is redundant, if it happened in WWII then it is a valid entry, have we forgotten that a software developer needs to develop software to make their money?

I'm happy these are your views Bongo :grin:

Understand that you're basing your argument on the presumption people share these views: many of which don't. You joined the forum on the month of release, so spared yourself from the deluge of disappointment.

Excellent.

I'm basing my argument on 'my' views, I just happen to know some do share them, I don't see where you are going with this.

Yes but I was born 39 years before that....again where are you going with this?

I'm old enough to have seen many a dissapointment in life, trust me, a game being released in less than ideal condition is hardly one of lifes 'big ones'.

Somehow I have to include something 'on topic'........When is the patch due B6?

Last Wednesday or any day after that was the latest I heard.

Yeah....so did I, it just seems obligatory to ask.