Mini-update from devs

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Flyable B-17 would be VERY cool. Does anyone know why they never included it in IL-2?

It's a huge amount of work to make one? Several gunner positions plus the cockpit, bombsight and if they were to do it right the navigators position possibly too. A big job... several people in the third party arena have started B-17 projects but I've never seen or heard about one being finished.

So that would be why.

Plus as far as being useful in multiple theaters around World War II (Africa, Pacific, Europe, China/Burma, etc.) the B-24 is the real workhorse.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by IceFire

It's a huge amount of work to make one? Several gunner positions plus the cockpit, bombsight and if they were to do it right the navigators position possibly too. A big job... several people in the third party arena have started B-17 projects but I've never seen or heard about one being finished.

So that would be why.

Plus as far as being useful in multiple theaters around World War II (Africa, Pacific, Europe, China/Burma, etc.) the B-24 is the real workhorse.

I understand the time issues. It just seems like a flyable B-17 would have been worth the time. Same goes for the B-24.

[Ctrl E]

Any chance we could get a proper update on the timeframe for the next patch and what it will likely include?

[dali]

It is becoming more and more apparent, that COD has no future. The ammount of things which are not working as they should is just growing each day as people play it longer and longer. I like some parts of it, but generaly, is it realy big step from IL-2? I don't think so. Its not just the stuttering, low fps and other "technical" problems, this sim is missing a complete roadmap, to me it looks like a trip without a plan. And this insight from ex programmer (is it a coincidence that another key person announced his new plans at aproximately same time?) just shows that at certain point in development certain features were disabled (clouds for instance) because the thing was unplayable... I've done a lot of beta testing in my life for several projects, some games, some serious stuff, and COD at the time of release was just not ready, could be called advanced alpha at the best....and I more and more belive, that it never will be ready, because its not only the "broken" stuff which could be improved, but it is the general feeling which is, I'm sorry to say, pretty negative.

What keeps me wondering is emphesise on wrong features. Who the hell needs rolling grass, tank gun recoil, trains modeled in extreme detail, whole map of SE England..but at the same time blunt sounds, problematic AI and FM, tracers, envronemt (weather), game content are named placeholders?

Recent development is certainly not reasuring.

Before fanboys launch their attacks...I have quite a lot of flying time under my belt, from gliders to jet aircraft and considerable experience in project managment and execution...and I played Il-2 series from day one...

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by dali

It is becoming more and more apparent, that COD has no future. The ammount of things which are not working as they should is just growing each day as people play it longer and longer. I like some parts of it, but generaly, is it realy big step from IL-2? I don't think so. Its not just the stuttering, low fps and other "technical" problems, this sim is missing a complete roadmap, to me it looks like a trip without a plan. And this insight from ex programmer (is it a coincidence that another key person announced his new plans at aproximately same time?) just shows that at certain point in development certain features were disabled (clouds for instance) because the thing was unplayable... I've done a lot of beta testing in my life for several projects, some games, some serious stuff, and COD at the time of release was just not ready, could be called advanced alpha at the best....and I more and more belive, that it never will be ready, because its not only the "broken" stuff which could be improved, but it is the general feeling which is, I'm sorry to say, pretty negative.

What keeps me wondering is emphesise on wrong features. Who the hell needs rolling grass, tank gun recoil, trains modeled in extreme detail, whole map of SE England..but at the same time blunt sounds, problematic AI and FM, tracers, envronemt (weather), game content are named placeholders?

Recent development is certainly not reasuring.

Before fanboys launch their attacks...I have quite a lot of flying time under my belt, from gliders to jet aircraft and considerable experience in project managment and execution...and I played Il-2 series from day one...

+1 - Exactly what I have been saying since release - there seems to be a serious lack of oversight/planning and they spent way too much time on features they cannot currently implement or even think about implementing. You dont invest time into modeling and programming things that you cannot integrate into the game. The same lack of planning is apparent in the devs comments over time and the lack of important features (like being able to fly around buildings...) without a huge and absurd hit to the fps.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by dali

Before fanboys launch their attacks...I have quite a lot of flying time under my belt, from gliders to jet aircraft and considerable experience in project managment and execution...and I played Il-2 series from day one...

Why would anyone attack you? You don't like the game. So what? Anyone who watches video of the game can make up their own mind about your evaluation of the game.

[dali]

its not that I don't like it and express it. I'm saying all of this because I like some things in it, I like Il-2 series and I would realy, realy like COD to become mature peace of software. Otherwise I wouldn't bother to express my concerns...

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by dali

its not that I don't like it and express it. I'm saying all of this because I like some things in it, I like Il-2 series and I would realy, realy like COD to become mature peace of software. Otherwise I wouldn't bother to express my concerns...

I think we'd all like it COD to improve. You apparently don't think that is going to happen. I have no idea why you feel that way. I'm also a (current) programmer, and I don't see anything about the current game that can't be fixed. You feel otherwise. So what?

The thing I don't understand is why you feel the need to tell everyone that you think the game is doomed. Do you also enjoy torturing kittens?

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Why would anyone attack you? You don't like the game. So what? Anyone who watches video of the game can make up their own mind about your evaluation of the game.

You need to stop this silly paradigm of "if someone criticises the game or the devs they dont like the game". Its simply not true, its a case of either:1. They bought the game and feel they did not get their moneys worth and therefore want to devs to improve it OR 2. They care about the game and its progress/success and are here to try to help bring light to the issues and possible fixes, or even just to throw in their 2 cents which if everyone does will help the game (not your $ but your honest opinion).

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

You need to stop this silly paradigm of "if someone criticises the game or the devs they dont like the game". Its simply not true, its a case of either:1. They bought the game and feel they did not get their moneys worth and therefore want to devs to improve it OR 2. They care about the game and its progress/success and are here to try to help bring light to the issues and possible fixes, or even just to throw in their 2 cents which if everyone does will help the game (not your $ but your honest opinion).

I don't need to stop anything. As long as you feel the need to launch pointless attacks on the game, I'm probably going to keep defending it.

By the way, I'd love to know how "all is doomed!" posts are going to help the game?