Fresh stuff from sukhoi.ru (Discussion)

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

Yes, I'll have to do missions in sequel.

A good mission is this: a detailed study of the historical time period required, a detailed mapping of the front line and the deployment of troops, the living world around the player (he must see events not related to his job), testing and selection of the balance.

It is easy to show by examples, but my campaign were published in Russia only.
http://games.1c.ru/il2_roads_of_war/
http://games.1c.ru/warroads2/
http://games.1c.ru/chuzoe_nebo/
You could only see my work "VVS'46" in IL-2:1946, but this is a hypothetical scenario of the war. Bad example, but there you can see details of airfields and ground war to the requirements of 2006.

In MG I work in the fall of 2003, but I did the mission on other people's scripts for the AEP and PF. For versions 4.05 and 4.06, I only supervised over creation of campaigns. It was a strange situation, I do not know why Oleg Maddox has chosen this way

I try to search the most detailed information and recheck everything. It's a long story...

You have both a difficult and I imagine a rewarding job to do, keep up your good work.

[csThor]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

Yes, I'll have to do missions in sequel.

A good mission is this: a detailed study of the historical time period required, a detailed mapping of the front line and the deployment of troops, the living world around the player (he must see events not related to his job), testing and selection of the balance.

It is easy to show by examples, but my campaign were published in Russia only.
http://games.1c.ru/il2_roads_of_war/
http://games.1c.ru/warroads2/
http://games.1c.ru/chuzoe_nebo/
You could only see my work "VVS'46" in IL-2:1946, but this is a hypothetical scenario of the war. Bad example, but there you can see details of airfields and ground war to the requirements of 2006.

In MG I work in the fall of 2003, but I did the mission on other people's scripts for the AEP and PF. For versions 4.05 and 4.06, I only supervised over creation of campaigns. It was a strange situation, I do not know why Oleg Maddox has chosen this way

I try to search the most detailed information and recheck everything. It's a long story...

Looks like you're similar to me - only that I lose patience and drive quickly if things don't go the way I want them to go (which is why I never made a campaign). I'm having very high standards for missions - seeing a wrong aircraft type in a unit is enough to make my tonails curl. I'm similarly pedantic when it comes to ground composition and layout ...

What I had hoped for in the new engine is the ability to string longer colums together, say twenty to thirty vehicles of various types, be able to set their travelling speed as to coordinate this column with others (so that you can have a tank company intermingled with a motorized artillery battery and a battalion of motorized or mechanized infantry etc). I like lively environments, small scale engagements for some nameless village or strongpoint, moving supply columns in the back, artillery fire etc. All of that was a real pain in the rear to coordinate in 1946 so I had hoped the new engine would bring advances for the mission builder but those hopes have not been fulfilled (yet?).

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Of course, but you do understand how it could very easily be seen as trying to pull a snow job on those of us disturbed about CoD don't you? Dangle the shiny new object in front of us while the product we have is kaput.
...

I think it was very unfortunate that this view took hold. Personally I was pleased to see news about the sequel. The problem was that it didn't have to be an 'either/or' situation - the discontent arose because of the repeated lack of comment on the patch and future plans for COD despite numerous requests.

If they'd have been responded to earlier there wouldn't have been any oxygen for the 'they're trying to distract us' fire to grow.

It's really unfortunate. I believe the news about the sequel was given for very genuine reasons. But in the current situation it couldn't compensate for what seemed to be a needless lack of openness about the current game.

I really don't want to comment on all this any more, but some people are still misrepresenting the views of people like myself as being about either demanding the patch NOW, or about being told when the patch will be released. That isn't the case. Most of us recognise the difficulties in finalising the patch for release and the danger in promising a release date.

Instead, what has been requested (repeatedly!) is news about development progress in the areas of: FM, AI, comms, DX11, etc, etc. This could be given in the context of a 'looking forwards in 2012' piece written by Luthier giving the view forward as he sees it now (along the lines of what has been done for ROF by Jason see:

http://riseofflight.com/Blogs/post/2...lans-2012.aspx )

This could cover the envisaged sequence for how the features will be implemented after the graphics engine rewrite is completed, and could include plans for tree collision detection, use of the various crew animations, etc.

Blacksix, I hope that with this example you may have a better idea of what would please some of us to see here on the forum.

I recognise that any decision on this would have to come from Luthier. Thanks for your patience and your attempts to keep us informed. They are appreciated.

[Luftwaffepilot]

Blacksix,

if Luthier doesn't want to give you information about the patch, why don't you tell him to come here and post it by himself.
IF the team is working on the patch, you/Luthier can't pretend there's nothing to tell about it. That's just nonsense.
2 (or was it even 3) weeks ago you told us about a "last-minute issue" taking probably 2 more days to solve. Now it's 2 or 3 weeks? And there's nothing to tell?

[BlackSix]

Originally Posted by Luftwaffepilot

Blacksix,

if Luthier doesn't want to give you information about the patch, why don't you tell him to come here and post it by himself.
IF the team is working on the patch, you/Luthier can't pretend there's nothing to tell about it. That's just nonsense.
2 (or was it even 3) weeks ago you told us about a "last-minute issue" taking probably 2 more days to solve. Now it's 2 or 3 weeks? And there's nothing to tell?

February 17 we were told honestly:
"Graphics-wise, we’re dealing with a last-minute issue as we speak. We rather unexpectedly found a problem with our aircraft decals, i.e. the code that places crosses and roundels and chevrons etc on top of the aircraft paintscheme. The code is being rewritten, the work should be finished in about 2 days."

Then began the new problems and changes in the timing of release. We can promise something now, but the situation again. I don't see in it sense.

[Dano]

No worries BlackSix, it's ready when it's ready as far as I am concerned, I don't need somebody to hold my hand and whisper repeatedly in my ear for the understanding that it's being worked on to become apparent.

[MD_Gunshy]

Thanks for all you do!

[Sutts]

Blacksix,

There are many like me that don't feel negative about the current situation and really appreciated the BoM material you posted. Please don't put too much weight on comments from a vocal minority.

I know that good things can take time to develop, especially in a product this complex. Thanks also for taking the time to compile and pass on the feedback we posted.

Keep smiling.....

[satchenko]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Blacksix,

Please don't put too much weight on comments from a vocal minority.

Really? "vocal minority"? are you sure?

[Luftwaffepilot]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Blacksix,

Please don't put too much weight on comments from a vocal minority.

You can say that cause it's not your money depending on this "vocal minority" (as you call the majority)