Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-13-2011, 05:22 PM
beazil beazil is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro View Post
IYep, that's why Ubi forced Olegs hand regardless of the state of the product after the last minute epilepsy surprise.
IF true, that is sad news indeed. That still doesn't explain the lack of multi core or multi card rendering support by a piece of modern software that was engineered from the ground up to utilize modern computers for the purpose of BoB era flight simulation (otherwise why not just release another add on for IL2?).

It wasn't ready for release two weeks ago. It isn't now. I can see where it's going to be an absolutely glorious piece of work when it's finished. I don't even mind paying for the privalege of "beta testing" this monumental piece of work - but I do understand the frustrations of the developer, the customers and even the publisher - who has at some point to say just release it already.

This release has been something of a perfect storm for all involved. Which is a shame - because in the end I think we are going to get something I think we will all really be able to enjoy. S!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-13-2011, 05:33 PM
recoilfx recoilfx is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urufu_Shinjiro View Post
I think you have it close but a little skewed. I think the game was pretty close to ready, in fact real close to where Oleg and crew wanted it to be for release, then Ubi sprang this epilepsy requirement on them and in any code this complex you're likely to break a whole bunch of stuff if you have to hack a feature in at the last minute. I think they were 100% forced to add this filter/make significant engine changes to meet the epilepsy requirement at the 11th hour and were given zero extra time to make it work. That would certainly explain Olegs youtube remarks about leaving game development, how frustrated would you be if you were nearing the release of all your labors and the result looked pretty damn good, then your contractual partner forced game breaking changes on you with no time to do it right or even make it work before release?


Yep, that's why Ubi forced Olegs hand regardless of the state of the product after the last minute epilepsy surprise.
I don't think Ubisoft is to blame for the Epilepsy issue. This has been a practice with Ubisoft for several years.

If Oleg signed on with a publisher, then it would be the Oleg's fault for not reading these requirements, and subsequently setting the wrong release date - again, a management mistake.

Luthier also had officially said that Ubisoft wasn't at fault.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-13-2011, 07:17 PM
machoo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rushed out the door or not , they had years. Surely they would see that it runs like balls in this scenario and try to fix it. Nobodys system could really run it until last week with the NOSSA tweat . Now most people get great fps. A week after release and a customer found a fix.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:28 PM
Heliocon Heliocon is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 651
Default

I would like to note there is a few problems here:
1. Optimization, the current engine is currently rediculously inneficient not only in what it processes, but the fact that it is badly bottlenecked on even last gen hardware. So efficient use of more than one thread, SLI and Crossfire support etc. Anti-aliasing needs immediate loving too.
2. Once the above issues are addressed, they can start looking at how it will use the current gen high end hardware and software (that means 4 core CPUs efficiently and possibly 8 threads (althought the top end is 6 cores) and DX11-tesselation, direct compute etc) Also efficient use of 64bit.exe with memory over 4gb. Also needed is support for 3 way SLI and crossfire which is becoming very common (for example 3 460s).
3. Once the above is done they can start working on next gen hardware that will be released mid way-end to the end of this year, so by the time they get to it will probably be high end current gen (aka point 2) which is 8 core cpus, with 16 threads (AMD Bulldozer) and a possible 32nm 8 core and 16 thread intel cpu for 1366 socket. At the end of 2011 Nvidia is coming out with their brand new 28nm (current is 40nm I believe) GPUs, AMD is likely to do the same (AMD since ATI was bought out and they are phasing out the use of ATI brand name).
4. By this time then they can start looking at what is coming in the future
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:43 PM
kalimba
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heliocon View Post
I would like to note there is a few problems here:
1. Optimization, the current engine is currently rediculously inneficient not only in what it processes, but the fact that it is badly bottlenecked on even last gen hardware. So efficient use of more than one thread, SLI and Crossfire support etc. Anti-aliasing needs immediate loving too.
2. Once the above issues are addressed, they can start looking at how it will use the current gen high end hardware and software (that means 4 core CPUs efficiently and possibly 8 threads (althought the top end is 6 cores) and DX11-tesselation, direct compute etc) Also efficient use of 64bit.exe with memory over 4gb. Also needed is support for 3 way SLI and crossfire which is becoming very common (for example 3 460s).
3. Once the above is done they can start working on next gen hardware that will be released mid way-end to the end of this year, so by the time they get to it will probably be high end current gen (aka point 2) which is 8 core cpus, with 16 threads (AMD Bulldozer) and a possible 32nm 8 core and 16 thread intel cpu for 1366 socket. At the end of 2011 Nvidia is coming out with their brand new 28nm (current is 40nm I believe) GPUs, AMD is likely to do the same (AMD since ATI was bought out and they are phasing out the use of ATI brand name).
4. By this time then they can start looking at what is coming in the future
Pfiooooouuuw ! That means at least 400 gallons of Vodka ....

Salute !
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-13-2011, 09:40 PM
mazex's Avatar
mazex mazex is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,342
Default

He he, there is also something called "gold plating" regarding software development... That is when a developer puts down way to much time on some insignificant thing and makes it perfect beyond the demands of the customer while they miss doing a lot of other rather easy stuff that are important for the customer...

We have cockpits that are clickable which only a few percent of the users will use more than a few times (Olegs own words) - while we don't have force feedback which is a major issue for a good percentage of the core users, horrible input mappings etc... It sure will be fixed but it hurts seeing the control settings pages for a game of this calibre.

Still - as a software developer myself I can imagine the horror of tracking down bugs in a piece of software this complex where you don't know the hardware it will run on, or driver versions etc... As it is now it really is getting really enjoyable even on old mid range computers like mine (new one will be ordered when a bonus lands in two weeks).

Regarding bugs and bad performance... Just look at this video I did last night on my 4 year old computer (Core 2 Duo E8400@3.3 - GTX275 - 6GB memory and W7x64):



That is with the latest patch and the nossao mod, I have no complaints about the performance there...
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-13-2011, 04:04 PM
recoilfx recoilfx is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hayward View Post
I have no idea why they didn't test every configuration possible. Wait, yes I do. It isn't possible.

They also got hit with the epilepsy issue late in the process. I think they broke a bunch of things trying to get the game to pass the epilepsy test.
The devs got hit with the epilepsy issue because the development was mismanaged. The team simply didn't have time to sort out everything that's been on Ubisoft's QA list when the chopping time came.

I don't mean that there are no talents in the team, but from a management point of view - they didn't make good decisions as to which features to pursue/refine in a given amount of time and funds.

They've bitten more than they can manage - time and money ran out. The blame lies, unfortunately, on Oleg and Luthier. They were the ultimate decision makers. I just hope that the team has enough cash flow from loyal fans to follow through.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-13-2011, 04:18 PM
David Hayward David Hayward is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recoilfx View Post
The devs got hit with the epilepsy issue because the development was mismanaged. The team simply didn't have time to sort out everything that's been on Ubisoft's QA list when the chopping time came.

I don't mean that there are no talents in the team, but from a management point of view - they didn't make good decisions as to which features to pursue/refine in a given amount of time and funds.

They've bitten more than they can manage - time and money ran out. The blame lies, unfortunately, on Oleg and Luthier. They were the ultimate decision makers. I just hope that the team has enough cash flow from loyal fans to follow through.
Have you got access to internal discussions? If not then you are just guessing, just like everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-13-2011, 05:22 PM
recoilfx recoilfx is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hayward View Post
Have you got access to internal discussions? If not then you are just guessing, just like everyone else.
Of course we are guessing because we don't have the official story from Maddox. We can only gather conclusions from whatever Oleg and Luthier had said.

Team Maddox is small - that's a fact.

Luthier had invoked him feeling overwhelmed in this interview.

So yes, the team bit more than they could manage, given the sorry state of the release.

I can't find the exact quotes from Oleg or Luthier regarding the money situation. But consider this, given the length of the development (5+ years), any publisher would have to somehow recoup their investments. Do we really have to blame Ubisoft for this?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-13-2011, 05:25 PM
David Hayward David Hayward is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by recoilfx View Post
Do we really have to blame Ubisoft for this?
I don't see any reason to blame anyone.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.