The future of IL2CoD/BoM..

[adonys]

what baffles me, and should actually baffle you all, though I never saw anyone opening this topic, is why can't we get future updates on the IL2CoD engine IF the same engine is used into IL2BoM?

as they are developing the engine further on, it would have been simple to release patches for IL2CoD just upgrading the engine (RadioComms, AI, Weather, dots/LODs/visibility, etc)..

why they won't do such a thing?

I can only see two answers, and frankly both of them are deeply upsetting: they either won't use the same engine, or they just don't want to give those patches, as an enforcement to buy BoM. which all of us would have bought anyway..

[theOden]

Originally Posted by adonys

..why can't we get future updates on the IL2CoD engine IF the same engine is used into IL2BoM?
...

They need your money.

On the other hand, so does Bohemia but they still patch old ArmA2 for users not moving onto Arrowhead.
(we even got a patch 1.99 the other day for good'ole OFP anno 2001)

Effect is, I buy double copies of ArmA even if not really interested (arrowhead) but will wait for bargain bin for the magic "sequel".

In this business I think your history weighs way more than any expensive advertisment campaign. As such, for Maddox/1C I honestly think cost put into Dover is way more efficient in selling sequels compared to ads or whatever else.

But I've been wrong before.

[Feathered_IV]

The engine is still a bit of a bust overall and will be rewritten yet again.

[Anders_And]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

The engine is still a bit of a bust overall and will be rewritten yet again.

You know this or are you just speculating?!? No attack intended. Just wondering...

[Storm of When]

I thought along the same lines that perhaps the best way to test if something had been fixed prior to the sequal would be to unleash it on CloD and let us lot rip it to shreds. In all honesty I`m prepared to wait, I certainly won`t get deeply upset which is melodramatic to say the least, since the last couple of patches I`m happy they`re going in the right direction, stirring up more conflict on the back of a complete guess as to what`s happening has happened far too often here, and i`ve been guilty of that as well.....time to look forward and move on.

[grawl]

The thing is releasing a patch costs money to the dev studio.
It is always a question in application development, "should we pay more and get some features ready for the production, or wait and get all of them in a bundle later for cheaper?".
They also need to take on their dev time to integrate the new features for a patch.
It is not shocking me at all that the devs mood now is "let's put all funds on development for now", as their funding base does not seem very large.

To make it short : better use money to pay developpers than testers for now. I don't feel ripped off, now that the game is enjoyable (even on my very low bad config)

[edit] config :
8Go DDR (using a ramdrive btw, greatly helps with stutters/texture-loading)
GeForce 220 GTS 1Go
Intel whatever quad core (not sure about the Mhz)

I played every new version from the beginning, and could'nt help but see the situation get better and better for me (from stuttery unplayable CTDesque to a quite stable and solid 20-30fps over land). Even online is playable now for me !(even if I ALWAYS got shot lol )

- Objects and textures on high.
- Effects, terrain, buildings on medium.
- Trees, land shading on low
- Roads on
- Shadows, Grass, AA, SSAO, AE filter off


[/edit]

[Slipstream2012]

Originally Posted by adonys

what baffles me, and should actually baffle you all, though I never saw anyone opening this topic, is why can't we get future updates on the IL2CoD engine IF the same engine is used into IL2BoM?

as they are developing the engine further on, it would have been simple to release patches for IL2CoD just upgrading the engine (RadioComms, AI, Weather, dots/LODs/visibility, etc)..

why they won't do such a thing?

I can only see two answers, and frankly both of them are deeply upsetting: they either won't use the same engine, or they just don't want to give those patches, as an enforcement to buy BoM. which all of us would have bought anyway..

So if you were gonna by BoM anyway, why the post?

They are running a business, and its the same as its always been, they release a game, patch it (though admittedly its usually more than a few patches), then release a sequel which moves the game on, but also updates the original content. Then it will be patched and the cycle begins again.

They are expecting their long term customers to by BoM & they are depending on it, because if they don't there wont be anymore IL2.

I don't see why them using a different game engine upsets you, the current engine has a ton of problems, one of which is that you can't get a plane to work by the book at higher altitudes, if it can even get there, which many can't, and there are many more.

I think that BoM will give everyone a nice surprise & will be everything that CoD should of been. Here's hoping!

[adonys]

maybe you need to re-read the initial post..

I was talking about engine updates only, if the same engine is used in BoM, why restrain engine only code updates from customers of CoD?!! there's no point in that: no, it wouldn't cost more (you'll just have to dump the latest stable development releases ad throw them online), you'll get a free betatesters base, you'll continue support and improvements for the porked CoD, you gain the goodwill of community by providing them newer improved versions until BoM will be out (which is the most important think actually), etc etc..

I also can not think they're so stupid to think that this is the only way to force current CoD customers to actually bug BoM, as most of us would buy BoM nevertheless.

So, the only fitting answer would be that the BoM has a different code, which was branched from CoD at least some while ago.. if not entirely new one..

[BigC208]

Originally Posted by adonys

maybe you need to re-read the initial post..

I was talking about engine updates only, if the same engine is used in BoM, why restrain engine only code updates from customers of CoD?!! there's no point in that: no, it wouldn't cost more (you'll just have to dump the latest stable development releases ad throw them online), you'll get a free betatesters base, you'll continue support and improvements for the porked CoD, you gain the goodwill of community by providing them newer improved versions until BoM will be out (which is the most important think actually), etc etc..

I also can not think they're so stupid to think that this is the only way to force current CoD customers to actually bug BoM, as most of us would buy BoM nevertheless.

So, the only fitting answer would be that the BoM has a different code, which was branched from CoD at least some while ago.. if not entirely new one..

I posted the following a few weeks ago and got a lot the same replies you got, no time no people, no money.

I know they're done with updates for CloD. What I do hope though is this. When they get close to release date, use CloD as beta test material,(minus BoM specific content).There are allready so many CloD users out there. This way they don't have to invent the wheel twice. We get free updates, they get free feedback and CloD stays on everyone's radar screen. Becoming more relevant with each update. Make it non steam downloadable content so we have a choice. If CloD's remaining problems get adressed over time, before BoM release, there will be coninued interest and increased sales of CloD. This will result in a bigger group of potential BoM buyers when it's ready.

with some coders making stuff that was never in game pop up on your screen.

who knows what else there doing to your game i think atag has gone to far with this server end modding and scripting.

its getting way out of hand this will be the doom of clod scripting like this.

the ATAG adon .dll has this kind of permission

BAD VERRRRY BAD