|
|
|
|
#1
10-05-2012, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Managing after a failure
I have some two very bitter and disappointing experiences with software system failure. When I worked on FAA's Reroute Air traffic Control System, the FAA told us to take our system out of the Chicago Air Traffic Control center and to start over planning and writing requirements.
Also when BOBII was released in 2005, BOBII was considered a failure at least by me and many other players. I now consider both the FAA and BOBII a success because new management software procedures and stronger testing (unit , subsystem, and system), and smaller incremental development. To correct a system failure, requires a new management approach who will focus on a strong software development process, enforced priorities, and a stronger testing approach. The development plan must also take smaller incremental steps that can be tested, released for testing to a strong volunteer beta test group. Without a change in management approach and focus there is a good chance that history will repeat itself on the new BOM System. I do wish 1C the very best of luck on both the quality and profit of BOM. 
|
|
#2
10-05-2012, 06:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with some of your assessment, but Maddox Games did just fine developing the original series, with a working game engine. The problem with this development is the unfinished game engine which they are trying to fix and finish which exacerbates every other problem with the sims content and features. If the development could have waited until the game engine was working before release we would never have seen such a clusterfk. There would still have been problems, but certainly not to the extent we have witnessed. Hopefully most of the glaring issues will be addressed by the Sequels release and they can continue developing theaters without it being a Keystones Cops Fire Drill.
P.S. for those that suggest that it isn't the same development team, you would be mostly wrong, as much of the same development team is still intact.
__________________
Intel core I7 950 @ 3.8 Asus PT6 Motherboard 6 gigs OCZ DDR3 1600 Asus GTX580 Direct CU II 60gigSSD with only Windows7 64bit, Hotas Peripherals, and COD running on it 500gig HD Dual Boot Samsung 32"LG 120hz MSFF2 Joystick Cougar Throttle Saitek Pro Rudder pedals Voice Activation Controls Track IR 5 ProClip
|
|
#3
10-05-2012, 07:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Good to see you Buddeye...ever thought about BoBIII ? Just license the WoP engine from Gaijin and honestly your AI will do the rest 
__________________
|
|
#4
10-05-2012, 07:40 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Why the WoP engine? Its a load of rubbish, just visuals and bugger all else...
__________________
 Quote:
Gigabyte X58A-UD5 | Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ATI 5970 | 6GB Kingston DDR3 | Intel 160GB G2 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit |
MONITOR: Acer S243HL. CASE: Thermaltake LEVEL 10. INPUTS: KG13 Warthog, Saitek Pedals, Track IR 4.
|
|
#5
10-05-2012, 09:05 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
#6
10-05-2012, 09:26 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Hopefully we will not be losing these features in the next game.
__________________
Quote:
Gigabyte X58A-UD5 | Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ATI 5970 | 6GB Kingston DDR3 | Intel 160GB G2 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit |
MONITOR: Acer S243HL. CASE: Thermaltake LEVEL 10. INPUTS: KG13 Warthog, Saitek Pedals, Track IR 4.
|
|
#7
10-05-2012, 09:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Someone else ask the question. I just can't do it.
|
|
#8
10-11-2012, 09:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Its about the overall gameplay experience at the end of it all... and Oleg spent too much time trying to simulate individual rivets and the like instead of balancing visual/FM/DM aspects with gameplay. War Thunder is a pretty complete package as far as gameplay goes and thats while its still at Beta. So it will only get better as they refine the damage and flight models and add more content. The unfortunate thing with Clod was that the game engine in its various guises didnt deliver so they have been chasing their tail since 2009. From a DM and FM perspective Im sure it is still more detailed than War Thunder will ever be, but at the expense of visuals, gameplay, stability and performance. Luthier needs to readdress the balance of gameplay/visuals/performance vs FM/DM for the sequel. He knows this and has commented as such to my question about balancing gameplay/visuals with realism. Its a game after all and not a static model where we count each individual rivet and wing spar. We want to experience a bigger world and re-live the 1940's from a pilots perspective with nice graphics and compelling game play. If I had to sacrifice some elements in order to get a better overall experience here's how id rate importance and my evaluation of CLODs attainment out of 5. (peoples opinions will vary but im sure you'll see what im getting at) #1 Immersion - 2 (what immersion?) #2 Flight Model -3.5 (good but not up to 1946 standards overall) #3 Gameplay - 2.5 (very average) #4 Graphical representation of aircraft models - 5 (miles ahead of 1946 and anything else) #5 Graphical representation of game world (water, land, trees, buildings, objects) - 3 (dont see it as any better than 1946 and this was one of the biggest failings of the graphics engine) #6 Damage Model - was 5 but has gone backwards to 3.5 in the latest patches at least visually anyway Equal #6 AI - 3 from a flying perspective and a 1 from a AI commands perspective. (im an online player mostly and if I was more into offline this would be ranked #3) So as you can see there is a lot to balance and thats just from my own personal perspective. Oleg focussed too much on the plane models and their graphical rendering and damage model virtually at the expense of everything else. Nice models with individual rivets and spars that can be damaged dont alone create an immersive WW2 simulation. Last edited by FS~Phat; 10-11-2012 at 09:17 AM.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
