Answers to Community Questions
 

Good afternoon everyone. Sorry it took so long to get to your questions. Finally got some spare time on a quiet weekend. Went through a bunch of them, still have a lot left. Hopefully will get to them tomorrow.

I also answered a bunch of Russian-language questions on sukhoi.ru. Sorry, no energy to translate them into English. Hopefully someone might help me out and provide a translation for me.
http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...72#post1902572

Here are the answers to your questions.

First of all, I disagree with it being “below standard”. Your definition of single-player standard is probably different from mine. If you expect Mass Effect or Skyrim, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
Cliffs of Dover was intended to be a sandbox game more than anything, expansive, open, giving complete freedom to the players. If you’ll remember, the original Il-2 owed much of its success to user-made content. We aimed for the same with Cliffs of Dover. Instead of building complex single-player content in-house, we gave the tools to the community. Cliffs of Dover has a much better mission builder with scripting support, supports complex moddable briefings and debriefings, and so on.
Unfortunately 3rd party support never materialized the way we hoped it would, and we ourselves cannot at this point go back and redo single player.
Still, I strongly disagree with your criticism of the single-player. The two campaigns, quick mission builder, and the full mission builder offer a lot in terms of single-player. Standard? I’ve played plenty of AAA games where the entire single-player content is under 20 hours with 0 replay value, and I didn’t even feel like finishing the entire thing. At the same time I’ve logged way more than 20 hours in quick mission builder alone. What does that say about industry standards?


Latest patch should take us closer.

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

There are plenty of people on the forums reporting a significant performance boost.
You should be getting excellent FPS in the game with your top of the line system.

Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

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

As I said earlier, this just doesn’t make sense financially. Redoing co-op in the way that the community wants cannot possibly be profitable within Cliffs of Dover. At this point there’s just no way that any given feature can lead to any kind of profits.

Slightly over 50.

Was it originally intended to move to the Med theatre after the BoB?[/quote]

I was not a part of the decision making process about any flyable aircraft in Cliffs of Dover so I cannot answer this question.

We keep working on aircraft performance, and hopefully the most recent patch showed some improvement in that respect.

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

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.

Yes, we’re pretty of the same opinion. We’re not doing further optimization at this time, we’re improving features instead. Specifically landscape geometry and clouds for starters, but all that is for the sequels.

It’s really hard to compare versions, too much has changed. I’m not sure if we can do anything to drastically improve performance as related to view distance at this time, sorry.

We had to release on the announced release date. Never any question about that on any levels.

As clearly shown by some of our beta patches in the past, no, of course not, why would you ever think that?

Yes. We even still have the core of the original 2001 Il-2 team working on the products.

Yes, but not with Cliffs of Dover at this time. Honest answer.

Well, it was either test with the community, or keep the patches brewing internally with tests taking much longer. If we had done this, the community would have imploded months ago being torn between the latest conspiracy theory of us closing down, and screams of "where's the promised patch give it to us now show us your progress".

I do think that people that post on the forums are naturally much more passionate and particular about the game than the average player. I do believe that we deserve most of the criticism that we get, if not always the tone in which it is offered. So, that covers fair.
Whether it’s reasonable is a more complex question to answer. The vocal minority always claims (and sincerely believes) that they represent the silent majority. We have our own opinion of what the silent majority wants however, and that often clashes with the forum consensus. At other times forum criticism can be unreasonable simply because some forum posters just don’t understand the simple realities of running a business.
So, in short, forum criticism is almost always fair, but not always reasonable.

That’s quite an interesting way to define “good” performance. Black Death was never intended as a 30 FPS benchmark goal. It was rather intended as an extreme way to bring any system to its knees.
Just upgrade to Win 7, please.

No.

I cannot answer that question off the top of my head, sorry

No that was indeed a real situation, a real publisher requirement, and our desperate attempt to address it at the last second.

Why would that be a surprise? I know very few people that, you know, love love Cliffs of Dover.

We need full time employees in our Moscow office. Most of our current employees only speak Russian, so new employees have to be fluent in Russian as well. I’m not aware of anyone at Daidalos who fits all those criteria.

Of course not, who ever said that it would?

We don’t run our own servers if that’s what you ask.

The only person who should ever answer this question is Oleg himself.

Yes, just differently.

Because we’re a business. Our goal is to make money. Fixing Cliffs of Dover does not bring in any money, and it has not pretty much from the start. Even if we spend another year working on nothing but Cliffs of Dover and release a super-mega-ultra update with co-op, blackjack, and hookers, how many copies do you honestly believe the game will sell?
Then the entire team can happily go and look for a new job, preferably in a third world country where it’ll be easier to hide from our investors.

This has always been our plan, and we still cannot get around to it. We obviously cannot just release the source code, and making end-user tools is not something that we have the resources to do at the moment. This fact greatly upsets me.

(blows a raspberry).

See above about tools. Map-making tools are number one on our list of end-user tools to release, whenever it is we’ll be able to.

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?
Because I know there isn’t.

AI speech does less than half of what we wanted it to do for Cliffs of Dover. Unfortunately the person responsible for the task left without completing it and we’re still trying to pick up the pieces.

Yes it will.

This murders FPS. We have too many trees.
We can only do it on a map that’s not as tree-y as the Channel.

That’s what we’re working on right now, for the sequel.

It already does a lot more than barrel rolls or no reaction.

Add-ons every 2-3 years has never been our business model, and we've evolved even further away from Il-2 lately.

We hated seeing horrible flat user-made skins everywhere in the original Il-2, so we settled on the technology that keeps the lower-end of the quality bar firmly set where no user effort can nudge it lower – even if that means also setting the ceiling for great skin makers.

Yes

I hope so.

We are seriously addressing our approach to modeling various systems. A lot of the stuff that we spent so much effort on with Cliffs of Dover ended up being a dud, no one wants it, no one uses it. At the same time a lot of systems people clearly want and need are not modeled with enough details.
So do expect a more sane approach in the sequels.

Sequel

We still don’t know what to do with the feature commercially.

Since I fear we may differ on our definitions of major issues, I’d rather not commit myself to that.
Obviously no one here wants to repeat the Cliffs of Dover release fiasco. We really do want to get it right next time.

We are planning for an in-flight checklist feature, for starters.

Delayed due to external circumstances. Not under my control at all.

Yes, that’s our sound designer’s only job.

Yes, the SDK will allow people to edit existing maps.

See above.

The entire year before the release is really hazy for me. I cannot say what changes were made to the map after Igromir. I want to say it shipped largely the same. If anything, we might have reduced the number of smaller trees and bushes around the landscape to improve performance, and adding them back would be a quick, fatal fix.

Probably not comprehensive enough. See our manuals for the old Il-2 products.

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.

Yes, not for Cliffs of Dover.

We hope it’s been addressed with the latest patch.

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.
Do want to add however that the occasional rumors that pop up around here simply mystify me. Why would anyone go through the trouble of doing all that? Lame and so very very creepy.

No. As I stated previously, this current patch, once pushed out to steam, will be our final update to Cliffs of Dover proper. All future work will be done within the framework of the sequels.

Please see above.

It’s not terrible.

We “almost” got it into the release candidate, but decided not to delay it because of the mirrors. Really hoping to get it working for the final release.

We are aware of the issue, especially in relation to bombers.

Please see the most recent patch notes.

Seriously?

Please see above for my thoughts on co-op.

It’s available now.

We’ll see if we can get this in. The list of issues is dozens of pages long, and the amount of time to do everything is almost astronomical. We’re tying to prioritize.

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

I would think most of the community should know by now that mentioning epilepsy to the team is a very, very bad idea.

Don’t give us your money on day 1.

[Edit] Part II
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...d=1#post465681

Thanks for the feedback and info luthier!

So from what I basically readfrom this is
It's just about as fixed as we can be bothered to fix it (or are capable of) , if you don't like it tough, we want your money???

Great read Luthier. Thanks for replying to those questions. Keep up the good work. All the people I regularly play with are very happy with the RC patch, just a couple of things that need attention in our opinion.

Thanks

I enjoyed the answers luthier...shed the tree problem after BOM, and head south :-P

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...all/138621.jpg

S!

Interesting read. Some answers clearly were a snap to the community as community is not always that correctly behaving either. But would like to point out the AI is still crap, worth nothing but be a target drone. Communications are, well as stated, bits and pieces it seems. Planes do still disappear at certain distances or are VERY vague.

For the bomber guys I really hope the "LOD circle" with popping trees and buildings will be fixed as for them it is a pain to align correctly when target is visible like seconds before drop when flying higher up.

I am sure devs want the Battle for "insert Russian town here" be correct and not a CoDish fiasco as if they launch a failcake decipting "great patriotic war" in Russia they will be lynched by the angry mob within a week. Anything related to that era sells there more than weed in a campus :D Look at WoT subscriptions, in Russia 3-4 times than in rest of world.

Anyways..Seems we will be stuck with CoD as it is almost and then waiting for the next installment of the series. If any kind of SDK is released that will help some to revive CoD, if it is comprehensive enough. Thanks for the answers Luthier, awaiting for the next post with answers :)

Thankyou for finding the time to do this Ilya and for your candid answers. Lots of food for thought here. Will be looking forward to more of your answers to users questions and looking forward to the sequal too.8-)

I'm confused. Will CloD & the squeal be merged / compatible? i.e if i buy the sequel will i see its benefits when playing in a BoB scenario.

I'll reserve judgement until the Steam released patch. But it does not sound great, time will tell.

This.

If *several* community members had been more interested in using their talents to contribute rather than to bitch & moan we would have had much more content by now.

In the original Il-2 the campaigns and missions that came with the sim were never impressive. A lot of the work made by the community, however, was fantastic. Sandbox sims give people the freedom to make amazing & complex content, instead of the "on-rails" action you see from most modern games, with zero replay value after the missions that came out of the box are finished.

A year or so after the original Il-2 came out there were already web sites and manuals (made by enthusiasts) on how to use the FMB. Granted, the FMB of CoD is much more complex, but it would really be great if the community would churn out fantastic scripts for it, rather than moaning about the hue of English fields ad nauseam... Just an example.

I myself try to make some positive contribution to the community with my movies (a couple of tutorials in particular). I wish some of the moaners would spend just a tenth of their energy on contributing rather than criticizing, but hey, I realise that isn't fashionable in this day and age...

The sequel will incorporate all the CoD content (hopefully improved as per the improvements coming with BoM). So, you get BoM and CoD as well. But it won't install into or on top of CoD.

That's how it worked with Il-2 and its sequel Il-2FB. FB had all the content of Il-2 + Finland and Hungary.

Quote:
4. Could you tell us how you test your alpha/beta patches before release, many of them have broken has much as they have fixed and your customers are left scratching their heads wondering how you could of missed some of the most obvious bugs, such as the hurricane not starting. Also could you tell me what online servers you or your employees use to test the game.


Ooh somebody’s real grouchy.

(and somebody has no answer for a real question? Why be so bloody disrespectful? It's a real issue and a bug. Your attitude stinks with that answer)


Quote:
2. Have you had serious problems re-writing the various code routines?

As clearly shown by some of our beta patches in the past, no, of course not, why would you ever think that?

(Have you seen this thread? : http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34623

and this one:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34626

and this one:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34643

Just asking)



Quote:
Are you ever going to fix the severe particle effects fps issues without resorting to making the effect look like it was made with lego?


(blows a raspberry).

(Pathetic answer. Maybe you should go back to posting a music video again? Seriously this is so childish I think you think this community is a joke?)


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

Are you saying there is a sim out there today that has clouds of better quality at greater volume, and offering better performance? I.e. matches all three criteria, quality, volume, and FPS?
Because I know there isn’t.

(Actually, there is one that is substantially better at depicting clouds in volume, density, altitude and realism!

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=34239 )



Quote:
Precisely how many separate projects does Maddox Games intend to work on at one time? Is the rumoured MMO to be developed by MG also?

I cannot talk about the sequel until the official announcement, sorry.
Do want to add however that the occasional rumors that pop up around here simply mystify me. Why would anyone go through the trouble of doing all that? Lame and so very very creepy.

(Because we never hear anything from you?)


Quote:
1. Will dev fix the pop up trees and buildings or provide greater view distance for people with high end cards?
2. Why do you have pop up buildings and not fade in.
People in bombers can't fly higher than 3'000m because targets pop up seconds before they must drop bombs.

We are aware of the issue, especially in relation to bombers.

(and you are doing what about it??????????)


Quote:
If your team cannot fix this first game, and give us what was originally promised/expected, what is there to show us that the new game will be any better, and worth our support, dedication, and more importantly, our money?

Don’t give us your money on day 1.

(Agreed.)

an interesting read, and amusing in parts as well!

Thanks. (I was not a original IL2 player)

Luthier, your replies would qualify as a guilty pleasure if you were only a junior developer. As things stand, they are magnificent...a kind of traditional New Orleans jazz funeral dancing down the street, trombones blowing....

Someone please wield the permanent ban-hammer, and swiftly.

(I will check in for your follow-ups, Luthier, just for crash-value. I think I have had more entertainment with these than I ever had with the game).

Luthier,

thank you for the extensive answers, especially on a weekend. It has been a very interesting insight into the ways and means of developing this kind of project (for those capable of reading between the lines ;)). I, for my part, gained a better understanding.

Looking forward to it.

Artist

Some of these answers are going to make for an entertaining thread.

http://i43.tinypic.com/24n17nm.gif

Yes I read it like that too but with one caveat.......and that is they are not holding a gun to our heads for the money.

I don't think Ilya could have been any more honest, they messed up the release, they spent as much time as was commercially viable to fixing it, if they don't start making commercial successes then there won't be anyone to fix a damned thing in the future.

Hi Luthier. Thanks for answering all of my questions. :cool: You get a good score for that! I also would like to wish you much better luck with the sequel. CLoD, it's water under the bridge. Let's move on and get it done!

Can you please confirm that the CLOD -> Sequel relationship will NOT be the same relationship as, say, IL2FB and Pacific Fighters?

http://www.abload.de/img/obama-boozing-it-up1gybph.jpg

Day 1 ? Never ever Luthier !

Your arrogance and complete ignorance towards the community will end the series. Good Job!

Over n out !

Not as amusing as those who still don't understand the purpose of a BETA patch and therefor having a hissyfit about some of the answers ;)

Thank you, wonderful analogy. This is exactly how I feel.

I see no reason to be polite to people who are going out of their way to be rude to me.

The game sold two and half copies in the last month and had 74 returns (I just pulled those numbers out of thin air by the way). Honestly, if I just replied witha picture of me mooning and flipping off the questions thread, the net result would be pretty much the same.

The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from.

I am sincerely very sorry we didn't do enough to keep you guys happy. Everyone in the team feels exactly the same way.

Well speaking for myself, I enjoy the sim very much for my off-line use of it. Lots of pimples, but still there is a lot there to enjoy.

Your are kidding, don't you? Who is responsible for this? Your customers, the community?

Fair play.. can't be more honest than that. Hope the future is fruitful for all.

But you got so close with the last patch....

This new one shows lots of promise too. It just needs a little more care.

I pre-ordered Cliffs of Dover but ended up buying the Russian version too, when it came out, just so I could get a first look. I bought the game twice, because I wanted it so much. To see it finally coming together just as the plug is pulled is heart breaking.

I sincerely hope the RC gets the bugs in it fixed for the steam release. Especially as the last Beta patch brought in so many of the game owners who had given up on it ever coming good.
That includes myself and at least a dozen of my Squad mates. I'd not be surprised to see that reaction from across the entire customer spectrum.

Regarding trees, I understand that there are way too many trees on the map to make them collidable. That was so since the original Il-2 beta, and was decided there. It was also not much a concern, given the maps were mostly for Russian steppes.

However, I am curious if collideable trees could be done (limited) within the near vicinity of airfields, where they may make a role?

Luthier, are you guys reading the bug thread or do you know what needs to be fixed for the release patch?

+1

I really really love this sim and even though some things are still broken I have a great time with it. I spent some 400 hours of playing it. I payed some 20 £ for it=what I pay for beer on a wednesday night out. A product that gives me the same pleasure as beer for 1/100 of the cost can't be bad! :grin:

Thank you for honest answers Luthier! :cool:

S!

Well, Battle of Britain was a major battle in WW2 and especially to Brits and it's allies it was a show of strength and determination. It had large scale aerial battles all over southeast England and ultimately over London. It decided the fate of Britain and possibly outcome of WW2. So no wonder some members might be a "bit" pissed off when CoD came out in a state it was in and now the sequel decipting Great Patriotic War with features CoD will never see, adds to the insult. Does it warrant rudeness? No, but no need to go with the crowd and dish out more rudeness ;)

Anyways interesting info filtered out there from the intended puns and all. Bring on the next series of answers.

I fully agree with the concept of providing the tools the community needs to make their own content rather than trying to build it all yourself.

There are some solid reasons as to why this did not happen for CoD - hopefully these will be fixed in the sequel or the result will be exactly the same.

Aside from the game play bugs I'm thinking FMB documentation, FMB bugs, huge disconnect between FMB and what actually happens online and coop (please don't underestimate the importance of this again).

Sry Luthier but performacne and FM of CLoD fighters still is crap. I checked british fighters with beta RC and they are still too slow ab. 20-30 mph (like before) at the deck not mention high alts flying. 109 was too slow in CLOD at ab 20-30 kph but British fighters are too slow much more -20-30 mphs ( 32- 48 kph).

Make correct low level speeds and you will get more accurate high alts speeds - that its work in old Il2.

You really need make it better.

Thanks for the honest answers Luthier, and for covering the questions about the map.

Can I say regarding the bolded bit from your quote above that I disagree somewhat. For sure some here will be hostile no matter what you do. Others, myself included, sometimes feel that poor communication needlessly creates antagonism - eg the delay in providing answers to these questions. A simple post on the forum saying they were delayed but upcoming would have been enough to smooth things over until they were ready.

Some of us who want to be supportive feel that the (lack of) communication here is sometimes more damaging than the issues with the game.

If that could be improved i think people would feel more involved and on your side.

----

Regarding your reply about tree collision only being possible on maps with small numbers of trees! Is this not a reason to review the use of Speedtree in the COD series in favour of an alternative that can be made to work more effectively?

The speed gauge is showing the wrong IAS speed on all aircrafts I tested. The brit fighters show a value some 15% lower than they accualy go. The gauge in the 109 is better and only show some 5% a lower value. So the problem is not so much the aircraft's performance but the IAS gauge

Agreed based on what I have seen thus far, the world cord (Z_) values are closer to the real world values than the indicated (I_) values.. Where the indicated values are the values used to drive the guages.

Really need an answer to this. Are you saying that CLOD and the Sequel will not merge together the way Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters did?

I guess we'll have access to the CoD maps and aircraft in the sequel. What else matters? I wouldn't miss the interface.

Some really disapointing things (see Mysticpumas post) which shouldn´t come in such a tone...

Some honesty on the other side...

Better make that sequel good.

Luthier, your recent RC patch has done nothing towards fixing the netcode, please fly online one night yourself and try it, I know the game is depressing but we have to put up with why dont you have a go, you may learn something.

LOL TREE, you haven't even logged in to steam or played the game since the patch was released....

Dear oh dear.

Thanks for answering the questions Luthier, its good to see you havent lost your sense of humour. Good luck with the sequel, hope we hear some more about it soon! :D

Hi krupi, multiple accounts are ban worthy, and why tell such a blatent lie?? It wasn't me who banned you.

i cant say that i am happy about this situation as i am not. but if buying BOM wil get CLOD to where it should be then i will. maybe if you released them the other way round this could of been prevented

Its not a lie at all "mate" just pointing out a simple fact, haha love it go hide under a rock you have just been rumbled... :o

luthier Thanks for being a man. an finally answering some QaA. HOPEFULLY we can get the major bugs out of the way. With the RC patch , but this one did not hit the mark ie planes not starting etc . We all know the amount of bugs an problems , BUT will also give you credit for some things ie. some sounds sky sun dot distance etc. some very good steps foreward , still a ways to go . I do believe alot of the problems could have stopped alot sooner if you would have posted. Even the guys that go over the top must think there is still something here ! or why the passion in thier posts? But we really need planes that will start . It is killing the game . I accept your apology But man you got to get it right . 10 mins. of your time verses 15 pages of spewing venom .

Yes I agree I should be, but because of your terrible product I get incredible slow downs whenever i fly though smoke, dust particles, clouds or come across more than a few aircraft, you once announced that fixing these issues was just 3 days work, obviously that was far beyond your team capabities, in fact 19 months since release most of the bugs seem to be beyond your capabilitis. Good luck with your sequel you are going to desperatly need it.

Krupi, you got banned nothing to do with me, deal with it.

With this latest patch, i'm getting rock stable and more importantly smooth fps for the first time, no more Clod shuffle.....

from my point of view/hardware, gfx wise its pretty much there.

So no dramatic slow down through clouds/dust particles and smoke?? No fps dropping to single figures when zooming in on aircraft online?

my wish list fix before RC3
 

yea' but now there seems to be texture lod issues again with the 109s disappearing when 300 meters away either this is modeling issue or texture

planes are causing micro stutters when they get near my plane

Spits won't start

Hurricanes won't start

throttle settings are incorrect

Boost scale is way off

Single player customization ammo load outs are not working

objects and horizon are visible through the cockpits again

objects are visible through the terrain and clouds

now if those were fixed, I think 95% of us would be happy with it.

not that i've noticed yet.

Could have

Could have

Could have

Write a hundred lines please.

There is no such expression as 'Could of'

Which bloody schools did you lot go to anyway???

Good bloody Grief.

Really? what was so damn offensive about that question that you had to be so rude in reply?

the in game UI you need to set AA to 4x

In the Video UI set your user proflie AA to 2x

That how you fix that.

:grin:

Very, very good point.

CLoD is Kee Bird
 

Here is a very sad video on the story of the Kee Bird. For those who need "closure".:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxbipBu7Cdc

Funny, I tested with AA off in both and still got a significant FPS drop when takeoff dust kicked up.

Very, very sad news re: trees :(

How can we have trees in old IL2, and not in the new IL2 is beyond me.

Maybe we should stop them from swaying in the wind??!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?

Quote:
The single player experience in Cliffs of Dover has been roundly criticized as being decidedly below standard. Can you tell us specifically in what ways you think it is lacking, and explain what you intend to do to improve it?

"First of all, I disagree with it being “below standard”. Your definition of single-player standard is probably different from mine. If you expect Mass Effect or Skyrim, you’re barking up the wrong tree."

I am most certainly Not looking for Mass Effect or Skyrim. That is absurd. I am however looking for effective AI, working comms, AI crew members that behave and interact realistically - navigators who navigate, bomb aimers who aim, plus some sense of what it is to run and maintain a squadron when between missions. Please think about it.

Thanks Luthier. Do not expect to get my money in the future.

Good bye.

Ilya,
Thanks for answering my question, which was really none of my business to know, but you were kind enough to answer anyway.

Also, I am extremely grateful to see the clouds' shadows in the RC patch. Best of luck with the sequel!

What a bloody joke.

Luthier, allow me to say that your attitude is not justifiable in any way shape or form, as a manager, as someone who's passionate about flight sims and as a man.

You failed to deliver a complete product, you conned most of us into believing that things would have been fixed, and now you're basically saying "hey this is what it is, so just take it and wait for the next chapter" which most of us don't even care for, since it's a theatre of action that honestly appeals just one market, the Russian one.

No matter how smart you might feel, the reality is that you've done a great deal of damage to the work that Oleg made over the years, building up a fan base and interacting, even arguing, with people, to deliver a good sim. You haven't been able to use the vast resources (50 people!) that you had to make a complete, half decent job, how can you even begin to justify that?

It was just a botched job, and your "sandbox" explanation doesn't just work(sandbox based on what, on a product that's not even stable for everybody??), not after all the time we had to wait, not after seeing more and more people getting disheartened and moving on. I'm sorry, but you really failed as a leader of such an important project for the IL-2 Sturmovik series, and even if you think people will get back for the new chapter, it still remains that you betrayed the good faith of most of us by delivering a half finished, buggy job on such an important aerial warfare scenario.

I don't really have much else to say, I knew this day would have come, I hope you all the best for the future, but rest assured you won't be seeing a penny from me anymore, and I surely won't do you any good publicity.

You've damaged your best asset, your customers, don't ever forget it.

Fight fire with fire? :-P

For all those people who complain heavily... if there was no IL2 future, would you have won? Would you benifit from the poor performance of IL2:Clod? Would we do without IL2 as a future? What we you all go on to in the future without a WWII combat flight sim?

RoF? - Not WWII
DCS? - Only two aircraft?

It might not be 100% But what else is there? Either you support it and it grows or... Train simulator?

Well said. The original post was very welcome also. Looking forward to your next one. Also, as an off-line player, I have good FPS and don't expereience many of the problems discussed in this forum, so have found this sim most enjoyable. Looking forward to the sequel.

Well, apart for the fact that one's life shouldn't gravitate around this, it still remains that the end product was a botched job and we've been feed bs for more than a year, don't you agree? You feel it's the right thing to keep on feeding the same machine if some things don't change?

I'm not questioning the potential here, I'm questioning the very very poor managing and comms that sent all this wonderful potential wasted. My concern is not in the skills of the team, but on the managing, obviously something hasn't worked somewhere, and in any professional environment when something gets screwed up it's the managers that get roasted.
If the managing issue is not solved, you might still see the same issues happening with the future products.

As per alternatives, I tell you what, I'm having a way more rewarding experience flying with the modded IL-2 1946 at the moment, cos those underdog modding guys are s******g diamonds for free.

+1

Hope we get a hotfix patch for:

1) Online Hurricanes not starting. Strong interest in creating an online spawning option for aircraft idling with engines warmed up -- exactly like Single Player/Quick Missions/Cross Country. Would reproduce realistic Battle of Britain scenario where it was the mechanics starting the engines at 3:30 a.m. while the BoB pilots were being awakened by their batmen with steaming cups of hot tea. Thet NEVER spent 5 minutes starting up and warming their engines during a scramble. There was a war on!

2) Spitfire 1a_100 octane and Spitfire 2a engines losing power, sputtering, wild rpm swings at 18,000 feet. Possibly same with Hurricane MK 1_100 octane as well. Mixture problem? Don't know but needs urgent fixing.

3) SLI support. SLI users report CTD unless SLI disabled.

I'm hoping that a quick "hotfix" patch could be released ASAP for, to many players, are gamestoppers with this beta 1.09 Release Candidate.

but hey you know what? Who am I telling this to? I said it months ago that this fix would have happened nor the product would have been finished, cos all the signs were there and all the people in good faith here kept on dissing my opinion and the one of other skeptical folks like me.

It's called denial, and it's the same denial that brought Luthier to this sorry state.

I'm saying this now, 1st October 2012, CoD won't ever be fixed, not even after the release of the new sim, and just like this one, the new one will have loads of bugs, because by the way Luthier explained things, it really sounds like the whole game engine is just a bit patched up, unstable mess that is not giving the hoped results in terms of FM.

But hey, feel free to say I'm wrong, cos I'm actually the first one to say I hope I am! So far ALL my predictions happened though, let's not forget that while to most of us this is a hobby, some here are making a living out of it, and if you look at it under a professional point of view it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that things are going really bad at Maddox Games.

I hate myself for having to write this, cos I followed and supported this sim from the very beginning, I was probably the first person to play it in Italy and to create the first Italian community, and I ALWAYS vouched for it, but since the change in the line managing things have gone bad.

Some people should just step down and change job, not only because they lack skills, but because they really need to work on their attitude, as a professional and as a businessman dealing with customers.

That's it, I'm done with this topic.

Plea to the moderators;

Sternjaeger has come out of the pilot's lounge. It can only be downhill from here.

Please, in the interests of good manners and decorum, close this thread before it gets ugly.

I thank you profusely.

Wow. Thanks for posting that mate. How devastated would you be. I couldn't believe the ending.
I appreciate the relevance too mate. Just hope it's not as dramatic. :)

I said I'm done with this topic,it's your childish post that is bringing things down. There was nothing rude about my post,just the opinion of a customer and former fan. Rest assured this thread will be locked soon anyway.

That's a lot of effort for a bloke who doesn't give a 'hoot'.

But hey, and hey again, thanks for the enlightenment. but shouldn't you be arguing with 'raaaid'?

Thanks for the responses, Luthier.

I still see many people are upset over this. I've gotten my enjoyment out of this for the price I paid for the sim easily 100x over. This sim has completely ruined me for even loading up 46.

I'm glad you addressed the sandbox analogy. That's one of the greatest things the IL2 series does over everyone else in the sim business. You guys really do say "here you go. Now make what you want." Please DON'T EVER CHANGE THAT!! That is why the 46 is still going strong after all these years.

I am more than happy to wait, because I know, given enough time, you guys will get it all sorted out. I'll be one of the 1st in line to buy the sequel. More content and features = I can't wait! I'm guess it will be a good 4-5 years before the ball really rolling and the community really takes off. But the main thought I got about your responses, which should be the main thing on every flight sim enthusiasts mind, is the reassurance that work continues. I know we'll get the BoB included with the Russian front. It seems like the addon's are going to be the same way the old game did (as far as that regards). That is very good.

In the end, all good things come to those that wait. I'm looking forward to it. I'm wish I could see just how many theaters, planes, maps, features, etc.,etc., we'll have in the next 10 years. I'm still confident there's many a good times ahead. And this is about the cheapest entertainment I've ever had, even with all the bugs. Here's hoping the sequel comes out sooner than later.

This whole thing/thread reminds of "drunk dialing".
Maybe it's just the bad raspberries?

Certainly, not the time to answer the phone...just pass the berries, back.

That's how I see it.

S~ SternJ This whole process has been like watching a poodle pass a peach seed. Painful, but necessary. :-|

Part II

First of all, I see that my brand of humor offended some people. I forget sometimes that some fans are so passionate about this game they can’t take anything but straight out plain answers, so I’ll answer some of the earlier questions again.

The entire point of an alpha-beta patch is to TEST things. If an alpha-beta patch had no problems, it wouldn’t be called an alpha-beta patch, it would be called a release patch.
We release these test patches fully aware that a portion of the community will get upset over every issue and blame us for it, but we’re still doing it because it allows us to test our software on a wide range of hardware by a huge number of people, and locate and fix problems much faster than if we test in-house.
Programmers themselves usually do a limited amount of testing, and that’s precisely why it’s always a good idea to have their work tested by other people when they think they’re done. Our other employees are usually far too busy to thoroughly test patches, and external teams of professional testers we have access to are not, you know, simmers and if we test with them we’ll get nowhere near the feedback we get over here.
So, we will continue to use this approach in the future as well.
I just want to add however that if you are one of the people who gets really, really upset when alpha or beta software does not work perfectly then please, please don’t participate in beta tests. I’m not being sarcastic or snarky, I sincerely mean it. Beta tests will always be buggy by definition.

You’ve seen how hard it was for us to redo graphics. AI and radio comms are even worse. Flight models? Nightmare.
The only time redoing a feature turned out well was when we redid the sound engine. Pleasant surprise for everyone.

Yes, the current particle system still needs a lot of work.

I’m not in charge of setting prices in any way. I seriously doubt that any of the people who are responsible for setting prices and distributing the product would ever consider anything like that. If I were to suggest something like this to me they’d look at me with big crazy eyes, quietly walk away, and never speak to me again.

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

Previously answered – can’t reveal yet.

Previously answered. Sorry, not my call.

Redoing and adding a lot for the sequel.

Sorry, sequel.

We hope it’s been fixed in the RC patch. I see some reports that it isn’t, so we’ll start investigating on Monday.

See the most recent patch notes.

Dedicated server shipped with the initial release?

This is something that we’ll make sure is in the final release patch.

We are looking into this, the current situation is unintended.

We won’t address ground object LODs in Cliffs of Dover.

Completely redoing the entire GUI for the sequel.

It’s nowhere ready at the moment, so you won’t see it before the sequel is released.

Unfortunately, it’s working is intended at the moment. See most other current gen games.
All our shadows are saved into something called a shadow map, a single shadow texture that is then placed on top of the landscape and other objects. The shadow map is of a standard resolution. The technology often leads to a case where a shadow map pixel is not the same size as a terrain or object pixel underneath it. As the camera moves, the shadow map is redrawn and reapplied, and the mismatched shadow map pixels appear to shift or shimmer. This is especially noticeable with a large amount of small objects.
The only solution is to increase the size of the shadow map, and that leads to a huge performance hit so it's not an option at this time.

Don’t have an answer.

Few features were outright removed. The only thing, if I remember correctly, that we had and you guys could not access was player-controllable ground vehicles. Other features may have been modified, shrunk, or not completed to desired specs, but I can’t even remember anything that was cut per se.

No.
They’re too expensive to make to release for free, and we can’t possibly hope to make any money selling them as DLC for Cliffs of Dover.

It’s working as intended. View settings cannot be changed in a track, otherwise people would just record a track online, quickly play it back on another machine, and see exactly where all the enemy planes are.

It appears that the track did not record the bomb bouncing off the roof. If you watch bombs dropped at a shallow angle in real time (i.e. while flying) you’ll see that they’ll bounce. This is what happened, but apparently the bounce didn’t play back in the track.

I’m not the only employee here. We have different people with different skill sets. The person who worked on player-controllable vehicles has absolutely nothing to do with aircraft or any flying part of the game.

Definitely very important considerations. In addition to myself, we now have several new game designers working very hard on improving gameplay elements and creating interesting, exciting, new online modes.
Now that the game engine is rather mature and we aren’t constantly distracted by FPS or crashes, we can finally take a deep breath and start, you know, making a game out of all this.

(wink)

(hurts his eye winking, ow)

Yes, we are aware of it. Sorry, we don’t have a solution yet, looking hard into it.

It is getting the attention it deserves. Unfortunately the code is so bloated and complex, changes to it take forever. See how long it took us to get the graphics working – the AI is even worse.

See earlier about the mods

Well I could always run for senate.

We’re hoping it’s been fixed in Friday’s RC,

No, I don’t believe so.

Thank you for your support and your kind words! I can’t make any comments on online platforms for the sequels at this time however, and I really wish I could.

As stated previously, it’s still my hope that we’ll release a map-making SDK allowing the community to change the existing map as they see fit.
Aircraft – as I wrote previously, they won’t be abandoned with the upcoming final patch. We are carrying everything over to the sequel, and they will get the same attention as new sequel aircraft and definitely benefit from our future efforts.

Absolutely.

I meant that it wouldn’t do anything for the bottom line, for sales. Whatever I do here today won’t sell any new copies, and it will have no effect on the sequel.
The only reason we ever did anything with the game, starting as far back as about last May, was for forum brownie points. It was clear enough even then that any additional fixes won’t pay the bills, that the only way for us to survive financially is to release a good sequel, fix any issues with Cliffs of Dover while making the sequel, and grandfather CoD content into it.
We made the decision then to try to release as many of the fixes as we can in the shape of free updates for Cliffs of Dover and hope that it restores some of the trust and placates the community. That unfortunately never materialized. The community is as hostile as ever, and for most of us the general atmosphere of “you fixed X, about time, let’s never mention it again, now why the hell aren’t you fixing Y” is extremely tiring. Again, don’t feel like being all PC today. Definitely not judging anyone for their attitude or saying they have no right to feel that way, but I personally can only take so much abuse, and that’s why I post here so rarely.
To me, the product speaks for itself, and my efforts on the forums are secondary. I feel that if the people aren’t happy with my product when they play it, I certainly can’t convince them to like it by posting about it on the forums.

Great list, thank you! Do everything we can for the final release.

Luthier,

I understand you saying the dedicated server was shipped with the game, but it's function doesn't really work like a dedicated server.

Let me explain: The dedicated server for IL2COD, brings up a DOS looking box/console that gives off the appearance of a dedicated server, and it very well may act like one too, but here's the major fault: The dedicated server connects like a client.

What I mean is, you load up a dedicated server for virtually every single other steam game out there, and steam is not required to run it. It is it's own standalone dedicated server that streams data through steam for showing on steam's master browser / for anti-cheat etc. I guess what I'm getting at is: If globally, steam goes down for maintenance, so does the server for IL2COD. This does not happen in CSS, TF2, COD4, CS 1.6, etc.,etc., etc.. The server always remains up. It may not appear up on steam's list, but steam doesn't effect it's ability to remain running, just it's ability to show up.

Now, if this was the only concern with connecting like a client to run a dedicated server, I could probably live with that. We've had to code various things to keep the server up and running when steam fails because of it - which is annoying, but it does work. But the main thing without having a real standalone server like the other steam games is made the ability to host multiple servers from the same machine, virtually impossible. I understand Repka has re-imaged their operating system (made virtual machines inside their normal machine) for each and every single instance of the server they want to run. Basically, this is ludicrous. I should be able, just like all other steam servers (such as the examples listed above) install as many and run as many dedicated servers that I please. Having the dedicated server act as a client is just flat out wrong.

Can you please tell me you are getting rid of that system and going to a system like other steam games, where you don't even need the steam service running to run a server. We have one hell of a dedicated machine, and it's sad we can't run more than 1 instance of the game (as a server on it) because of servers acting/connecting like clients.

Can you shed any light on this?

Thanks again i haven't seen a ghost formation since this patch anybody else?

Thanks Luthier for taking the time to write to us.

I may not like all answers but, it is a huge improvement compared to the "silence" we had very often during the past months (Black6 did a great job but we often felt how big the constraints were set upon him regarding disclosure of the current state of progress).

Looking forward to the sequel, good to read that there is a sequel planned and that work is being done (instead of dropping the whole project).

~S~

No, however just saw three floating ships, in the clouds. First time I've seen that. Very funny.

Luthier,
Thankyou for answering questions. I know the team is squashing bugs in the RC patch as best they can. You might have overlooked some important problems, especially numbers (3), (4) & (5).

GAME BUGS:
(1) Hurricane cockpit has blue flashing light/illumination coming from cockpit floor below rudder pedals. Could be rendering of engine flame inside cockpit?
(2) Hurricanes won't ground start until water temp > about 30 degrees.
(3) Spline roads & urban & rural buildings do not appear in online MP server games.
(4) Vehicles travel through bridges at ground height & not over them.
(5) Static objects don't retain their Z-offset parameter, all are returned to ground height in-game.
(6) Rendering issue when cockpit view turns red (pilot injured). See screen shot below.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile...s/?id=99735669
(7) In spitfire IIa, collided head-on with 109, entire plane exploded & disappeared. (a) I exploded, 109 flies on apparently undamaged. (b) my camera view left in mid-air, should be pilot-kill black screen of death after head-on collision.
(8 ) Spitfire engine cuts out when throttle pulled back below 30 percent percent.
(9) On custom-made air bases, taxiing Ai planes still jump into the air & crash to earth, or crash when they teleport as they taxi.
(10) FMB object rendering issues remain unchanged. eg. Piers at Dover only render at relatively close distance in-game.

FMB BUGS
(1) Spline roads don't show in FMB when a mission is loaded, they only show after you re-save the mission.

While some of the answers definitely will piss off some people, I find that they are honest answers all in all. Probably too honest for some people, but then again, honesty is always better than having sunshine and rainbows blown up one's kilt.

While I may not agree with all of the answers, they are what they are. When BoM comes out, I'll have a look at it and then decide if I'll buy it based on the merits and feedback about that product, and despite what CLoD was.

I guess what I got after reading all that is:

CLoD is pretty much done. We need money and CLoD aint it. Everything that you thought CLoD should have been will be in our sequel. Buy it if you want a working game.

Thanks for coming around to answer those questions, but for me personally, it doesnt shine light at the end of this tunnel.

Hell, I thought it was brilliant. I think MysticPuma needs to rap his knuckles against the Sarcasm gauge in his 'pit; it appears the needle is stuck.

I agree with the short fix list above... if you could get AI working at least a little better for the offline players, get the netcode a bit tighter for the online players, and improve the particle system you'd silence a huge chunk of the criticism.

It's an enormously ambitious game that's still a lot of fun even in the current state. People are really, really wrapped up in it as it's the only thing we've got that's moving the state of the art forward in high-fidelity WWII air combat. 1946 with HFSX 6 is pretty nice, but technically doesn't hold a candle except in community where it rules the roost.

I'll buy the sequel. Probably pre-order.

Thanks for answering the questions.


but dude (Ilya) some of those answers made me think for a second that all the negative nayswers were correct with some of the unprofessional (official business to business conduct).

And I was pissed man. But then I saw the second posting, and looking back, you're trying to be funny and also you're coming from a perspective of you're tired of all the bashing you've received and all the rampant speculation that's worse than every sewing circle and gossip columnist in history.


Also the answers to the patch fixes, it seems to me that there is so much on the patch that's promised, it may be too much to be actually done. Too big to deliver.

But since you know more about whats going on that us here on the forum (and me), I'll take it up on hope that all you stated in the patch will be said and done.





There is some hope the following means CoD will be fixed and I like the hope for community SDK tools to come later, so the 3rd party support can take up the mantle of making Clod better.



So its going to be similar to IL-2 but also the model will change . . . as they are not exactly following the IL-2 . . .




I think alot of the "attitude" Luthier has is that he's confident the sequel will fulfill most of the expectations we've had for the IL-2 successor series.

Also the man himself backed up what csThor was saying, and also that working on the game is primary and speaking with the forum is tertiary or quaternary . . .


I can understand the frustration and its a let down. Don't get me wrong, my initial impression was one of being upset.

But I remember you are putting all in the sequel and you did take the time to fix the sequel as much as your resources will allow.


It's funny, as the answers would only lead to more answers and also that the community would get what they want (the answers) and still gripe about it.

One of the points of hilarity was the SU 26 let down, but now that its out, someone was complaining about the SU 26 with lasers and not fixing Clod all the way.

Well . . . life goes on.



I think and hope that the sequel working and being a great game will help things.


Remember folks, history can change, with enough effort, focus, drive, and will. And doing what is right and good.

If you look back at the Americans at the start of WW 2 in the pacific, prior to Midway . . . you'd think they couldn't win.

That's what I'm hoping. Yes this series is the laughingstock of the gaming world. Yes it brings beast PCs to their knees. Yes they could have had it working, and had lot more content and features. But remember, yes they did fix it what they could. And yes the sequel is promised to be opposite of CoD's bad release . . .



sad, I was so bummed out ( I saw it when I was in highschool) . . . and couldn't tell no one that would really understand because the nerds were all into fantasy or sci fi, and the closest was the racer or car guys, but they didn't even get much since they knew about cars and not planes.

but that story isn't 100% accurate for this game . . . nor although we've the end of the road, still i can't let go . . . Because the sequel will come out and whats fixed there can aid in Cod, and tools for 3rd party improvements for Cod will be coming . . .

People need a Russian culture adapter here. Luthiers responses were FUNNY. Russian humour. Give him a break!

Here is another Russian joke...

"Russian Quality Control"

Whiskey - Tango - Foxtrott !!!
 

You're joking, right? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v5...oticon/wtf.gif You aren't really saying that CloD contains any offline and/or gameplay content worth the bits on my HDD?

As for the rest. Building a sandbox for the customers to play in is all fine and dandy if the karking thing had a solid fundament! In the current situation you're essentially saying "You want offline gameplay? Code it yourself." Yep! *shattering round of sarcastic applause* Brilliant. Marvelous. Sorry for the sarcasm overflow. I couldn't help myself at this apparent disregard of an entire slice of your community.

On a more serious note. Yes, the overwhelming majority of good offline content in 1946 came from external sources. But ... you know there was going to be a but ;) ... they had a solid fundament to build their campaigns on. There was a campaign module with rank system and medals (regardless how primitive), but CloD doesn't have any of that. Hence my "Code it yourself" statement. Well ... I can't code, programming languages don't make sense to me. Desastersoft did that, but they have their own style of campaigns and won't (for obvious reasons) release their campaign module for public consumption. Not that this would make much sense given the issues with the AI and the problems with player - AI interaction. Or has there been any addition to the radio menu with ground-attack options? Not? Oops!

So ... bottom line for me is that luthier apparently thinks that gameplay is a luxury and not needed at all. Interesting perspective, especially when you remember that Maddox Games wants to sell computer games. Unless, of course, MMO's are all you're interested in (what a coincidence, isn't it? :roll: ). I'll keep an eye on further developments, but I won't expect anything anymore. Have fun with your sandbox in which nothing but the usual clusterf*ck between fighters is possible. Too bad about the possibilities. *shakes head*

Not much room for jokes here. For luthier it's just a job. He can always get another one. But for us, where will we ever get another WWII flight sim from?

Straight from 1C, once they release BoM? :mrgreen:

Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.

Quote:
Any chance of stopping the trees and their attendant shadows looking like they're having an epileptic fit?

I would think most of the community should know by now that mentioning epilepsy to the team is a very, very bad idea.
Unquote.


It would seem that humour does not translate well either way. Then again we are always being cautioned about using humour in the workplace.


To re phrase the question:

One. Clod uses Speedtree. Trees in Clod 'shiver' all the time causing their attendant shadows to shiver all the time. Easily seen when flying over them. This is not how trees look from a few hundred feet.

Two. Lots of other games use Speedtree. In these games the trees and their shadows do not shiver from a distance, but individual leaves do move when close up.

Any chance of stopping the trees and their attendant shadows shivering/ shaking/ moving in a completely unrealistic way from a distance?


RedToo.

BOM is like Luke in original three . . . but DCS might be Leia or even ROF devs or some others off the horizon (and I'm being serious, if the ROF guys wanted to WW2 they could pull it off)


Yoda: Told you I did. Reckless is he. Now, matters are worse.
Obi-Wan: That BOM is our last hope.
Yoda: No. There is another.

Hi luthier any chances you guys could look into the lack of 109 radiator drag and the same for spitfire open cockpits, thanks.

Also I heard that ships were still gravitating towards the moon ;) please look in to that.

One last thing is that the RC patch changed the lighting, it's too bright now for example look at the light cast by a gunsight bulb during the day!!!! Please review.

Thanks for your time, :D

Also one more thing, please look at the spit weathering, it looks like someone dragged it through a few hedges between the assembly line and the airfield ;)

Luthier, thank you for finally being honest about how bad you feel selling us this broken piece of software, its good you can laugh about it now and make jokes. Tell me how bad did you feel when you were faking all those video's pre release in order to convince us to buy a product that by your own admission you knew was not fit for purpose?

Well said and the sad truth. In the end IL2 will be one of this usual, boring arcade online clusterf*ck MMO's. The coop mode with all it's capabilities to stay ahead of the mainstream competition died tonight.

Maybe we are just too old and romantic csThor. ;)

This isn't rocket science ....
 

Ever thought of boosting your bottom line by delivering a product that works?

Or by not delivering a prouct that you know doesn't work?

Either way is better than what you did.

Now those of us who spent good money for CoD wait to see how fair you will be with us when the (sight unseen) sequel hits the market.

.
I am happy with COD!
It could be better, yes but it is such a leap forward. Like the original IL2 was in the world of war flight simulations.
What is the difference between IL2 the original and IL2 COD... the subject IL2 original had a original subject that no had tried or touch before and it was therefore a instant hit. But and it is a big "but" COD is a air battle well covered by many games, books and movies so everyone think he is an expert or has is opinion.
Also when the game is more precise the gamer is more demanding. This is a game not reality! And never shall it be all games with ever his format pc or other has is restrictions, do not forget that the real Battle over Britain was a struggle to the 'death' this is not let us hope not!
For me the graphics are great!
The modeling of the planes far from perfect is near enough to make it a battle to prevail faced with mighty opponents!
I am waiting for the last and official fully tested patch and for the next (not sequel) game of the series, thanks.
:evil:
.
One last remark; for my PC this simulation did work (with very few exceptions) well or very well.

S!

Well, I liked these answers more. Honest and blunt. I hope the "Last Patch of CoD" will address critical issues so we can play meanwhile waiting for the sequel. Maybe should consider some DLC for CoD to get funds, like RoF. Sure has been discussed but still a viable option as there are things improving the game people would pay a small fee of. CoD is on the verge of greatness in many ways, just some issues keep it from reaching that yet. I hope the sequel restores the standard we were used to with IL-2 series before.

@ Tree UK

lol, ur bad .....

Good thing for us luthier is not the sort of gent to keep ill-gotten gains. No doubt in my mind we can expect free replacement DVD's the first week the sequel comes out.

Thanks for the time and support Luthier. I can imagine that it's not easy.

Serious question regarding tree collisions:

Often trees are grouped in clusters and forests, with a few standing alone. What if collision boxes were arranged such that an entire forest is covered by one box (or even just parallel planes like in 1946) . This would reduce the total number of boxes, saving FPS. The downside of course, would be more work on the map, fine-tuning these shapes.

Or, alternatively, each tree only has a 'trunk' collision region consisting of two crossed rectangles (four polygons max). Branches and foliage bend anyway, and many times aircraft have skimmed trees, taking branches home in the wheels or wings :cool: So, having branches clip through an aircraft might be acceptable.

Are any of these feasible?

Ease off a bit Tree.

I'm afraid to say it is, truly terrible.
Something simple like this is for me a game breaker.

In a previous comment you say that you (and others) were fed up of seeing, and I quote

but the 'thing' in this game is worse than anything I have seen in IL2,the effect is like a sandblaster from side on, with no working level of wear, just 100% full on.
I have never seen a photo of either a Spitfire or Hurricane (or for that matter any RAF aircraft) with anything even similar to the effect imposed on Allied aircraft in this game.

A little thing I know, but this along with the broken (with no intention of fixing it) coop channel map (the main reason I and many others bought the game in the first place) really puts me off.