CoD--Becoming a Masterpiece

[nodlew]

I hope your future customer base of 500 people world wide will make you happy.

You can't be serious? Even if Maddox games were to fold this afternoon, and all official support of Cliffs of Dover were to cease immediately, dozens, hundreds of amateur and semi-professional programmers would take up finishing this game On Their Own. There would be an instant call for the SDK, programming tools...

And whatever their success, or failure, hundreds of people, all flight-sim enthusiasts everywhere, would continue to work on and play this game for years, decades to come. You know why? Because, whatever its current bugs, there is nothing even in the same ballpark as this game. And there is no other company out there with the knowledge, the inclination, or the dedication to even attempt to produce one. Ever.

In fact, games like CoD are not made anymore. They don't exist. The profit margins are not high enough. They are too hard. The buying power of the Plane Nerd set is not potent enough to justify the effort involved. Ask the guys at TankSim.com how things are going in the Armored Warfare sim niche. And tanks are dirt simple to simulate compared to planes.

No, you are very wrong. Whether the folks at Maddox choose to kiss your ass or not, this game is by default the Name of the Game in WWII flight sims for the next decade. Anyone and everyone with a boner for WWII flight sims will be playing this game. And although a few may drop by the wayside, feel free to do so yourself, more will take up the game to compensate the grievous (snark) loss of your participation.

No, I am with those who choose to support Maddox games. I don't see anyone else producing anything comparable in the genre, and I predict that I won't see anyone else. I happen to love WWII, and I like simulations. I discovered flight simulation with Il-2 (and Jane's WWII Fighters--Jane's doesn't make flight sims anymore), I was always a tank sim guy before that (but they don't make tank sims anymore)*.

As I said at the beginning of this thread--I was angry about not being able to play the game, but I have witnessed the efforts of the Devs to fix those problems and I am mollified.

What the hell. All games these days are released with a bunch of bugs and problems. The classic games mature, and become refined. That's the way it works. What separates the companies that deserve our support from those that don't is their demonstration of their willingness to address these issues and perfect the game.

*Yeah, I know there's the new one with the T-62 and the M-60. I will definitely check it out.

[WT_Schmouddle]

I just come by.. and I am getting the drift..I guess

Mods here allow yaysayers to suggest naysayers to stick their head through their anus, no moderation there.
And as naysayers claim what they think is wrong, that is called negative attitude and their posts are deleted and their accounts profoundly banned.
I always thought mods are not here to herd the discussion the "righteous" way, they are supposed to be here to keep it civil, just like the Hyde Park soapbox keepers. You can talk whatever you can, but you shall not insult any other member, right?
Mods projecting their wishes about the product and baning others, that is A shame and a major no-no for an ordinary customer like me.

So, to the topic:
I am a sport pilot IRL, so take my commentary with grain of salt as the only warbird I ever piloted was humble 600hp Yak11 trainer (a plane similar to Texan I guess).

Regarding visibility:
Sorry, but that's how it is, quite often, IRL. Very often you cannot see white Cessna half a km away against city or cloud or haze. In the autumn, I met a group of WWI replicas inflight and as these are brown/green they were almost invisible against the terrain, only the strobe light of accompanying microlight gave their position on about 300m. So get used to it, even a collision is a possibility.

Flight models:
These are, IMHO very, very gentle. Even way too gentle. IRL I am really not sure whether I would dare to fly the Spitfire of Hurricare the way I do in COD. Heck, I was able to bring Hurricane without any problems to precise 3-spot landing on the precise spot on the airfield on my first try with 19fps and heavy stutter. I have never bent any metal in COD as a result of pilot error. That is very, very strange as IRL I sometimes have a LOT to do to keep straight and otherwise civilised aircraft attitude.
(Not adding that IRL I always got like very smooth 25fps, irrespective of scenery density)

AI: I feel the AI is taken straight from the old Sturmovik. Same, robotic controls (jerking it), same ignorance of aircraft limitations (try to fly Blenheim on the same settings as AI does, you blew engines in no time!), same inability to lead up properly on shooting, same collisions with terrain, same aerobatics with full laden Dorniers. I have seen it all, and there is a lot of things to correct.


The game is unfortunately very buggy and it more looks like a Betatest.
Talking about flying the Blenheim, I was very upset on myself I was not able to keep engines ticking, as these always lost power quite soon after takeoff.
I even dug a Blenheim POH outta internet and studied. The reason dumbfounded me. As the GAME was telling me I have 100% mixture in the digital levers on screen and also on engine monitor, the lever was set to "weak" in the cockpit. So I ruined at least ten sets of Mercury engines just to find out the GAME is wrong? (Not adding there shall be no smooth 0-100% mixture setting, just "weak" and "normal".) How on earth could anyone with more limited knowledge of how airplane engines work IRL find out what is wrong here? (And as there are no POH's released with the game, CEM is a sort of wizardry for common folk)

Someone here has mentioned the state in which ROF came out.
As I was a ROF betatester, I can openly claim that such mistakes were absent. The flying part of the ROF was top notch from day zero.
And comparing ROF and COD release - while ROF was released with more or less "Sorry guys, it is not ready yet, but we need to release and make some money, please support us, there is a list of to-do's" and in reality it was a very late beta, COD was released as next-gen ultimate WWII simulator being in very early beta.
And the support of customers reflect that. ROF found its supporters (I also own a majority of addon planes, just to keep them developing the offline campaign and keep a wish for an MMOWWICFS), while COD still struggles with 500 copies max ceiling on Steam.


There were my 2c, shall I have only one wish, I beg yaysayer mods to leave my opinion here before baning me for being negative.

[bongodriver]

But there are many naysayer postings on here that are still around and all say the same thing....

[nodlew]

Gee whiz. I'm a bad boy. A bad, bad boy.

But, you know, we were having a perfectly civil and decent discussion here until Cpt.Badger made his crude and insulting quasi-sexual suggestion about the "lube".

And then Oktoberfest's suggestion that anyone here views Oleg as a "God" was not flattering to the people concerned.

These comments rather interrupted the discussion and introduced the negativity that prompted my suggestions regarding what they should do with their lube and that they should pursue it as a team activity.

So don't put no guilt trip on me, buddy. They were asking for it. And I think the moderators could be forgiven allowing one instance in which someone responds to such Hecklers in a straightforward and no-nonsense fashion.

I bent my landing gear in a hard landing once.

And we will all anxiously await the patch that reworks the flight models so that the planes exactly reproduce your subjective experience of flight in whatever sort of plane you fly. At least then we will all rest easy in the knowledge that one person somewhere is completely satisfied with at least one particular aspect of the game. Mission accomplished.

Sheesh.

[WT_Schmouddle]

Nodlew - there is no need to excuse yourself. One could slip here and there.
My critisism went towards moderators, not towards you.

In my eyes (and I am a mod elswhere, too) if they got banned you should have been banned too. If you were not, they shoud have not been banned neither.

Simple as that.

[Ataros]

Check out this note from a developer:

Originally Posted by MuxaHuk

With new engine you can create your own game inside our game, for example: you connect to server, and server sends to you completly new user interface (no restriction, but protected by sandbox, no one can read, write or modify your data that out border of game).
New GUI, new rules of game, new score system with ranks and etc.
It can do right now, anyone for their game server.
Of course you need some knowledge of scripting and design. We will assist wherever possible to all comers.
We are working to create examples.

Imagine in the future, each server will be unique, different battles on land, in air or under water, or global war

Anyone who knows C# and wants to write an interface, resource management, ranking and voting for commander system for an "Online war", let's discuss here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=21518&page=6

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by WT_Schmouddle

I just come by.. and I am getting the drift..I guess

Mods here allow yaysayers to suggest naysayers to stick their head through their anus, no moderation there.
And as naysayers claim what they think is wrong, that is called negative attitude and their posts are deleted and their accounts profoundly banned.
I always thought mods are not here to herd the discussion the "righteous" way, they are supposed to be here to keep it civil, just like the Hyde Park soapbox keepers. You can talk whatever you can, but you shall not insult any other member, right?
Mods projecting their wishes about the product and baning others, that is A shame and a major no-no for an ordinary customer like me.

Bit of a rant so I won't comment.

Originally Posted by WT_Schmouddle

So, to the topic:
I am a sport pilot IRL, so take my commentary with grain of salt as the only warbird I ever piloted was humble 600hp Yak11 trainer (a plane similar to Texan I guess).

Regarding visibility:
Sorry, but that's how it is, quite often, IRL. Very often you cannot see white Cessna half a km away against city or cloud or haze. In the autumn, I met a group of WWI replicas inflight and as these are brown/green they were almost invisible against the terrain, only the strobe light of accompanying microlight gave their position on about 300m. So get used to it, even a collision is a possibility.

Couldn't agree more.

Originally Posted by WT_Schmouddle

Flight models:
These are, IMHO very, very gentle. Even way too gentle. IRL I am really not sure whether I would dare to fly the Spitfire of Hurricare the way I do in COD. Heck, I was able to bring Hurricane without any problems to precise 3-spot landing on the precise spot on the airfield on my first try with 19fps and heavy stutter. I have never bent any metal in COD as a result of pilot error. That is very, very strange as IRL I sometimes have a LOT to do to keep straight and otherwise civilised aircraft attitude.
(Not adding that IRL I always got like very smooth 25fps, irrespective of scenery density)

I've only about 60Hours in light planes. Cessna's and Piper's and even after some very hairy landings (so hairy that at one stage the instructor pulled me up on a touch and go landing, jumped out and told me to fly it myself! ) and even I can say I've never bent a real airplane.

I haven't tried to land hard on purpose, maybe I'll give it a go next time to see?

Originally Posted by WT_Schmouddle

The game is unfortunately very buggy and it more looks like a Betatest.
Talking about flying the Blenheim, I was very upset on myself I was not able to keep engines ticking, as these always lost power quite soon after takeoff.
I even dug a Blenheim POH outta internet and studied. The reason dumbfounded me. As the GAME was telling me I have 100% mixture in the digital levers on screen and also on engine monitor, the lever was set to "weak" in the cockpit. So I ruined at least ten sets of Mercury engines just to find out the GAME is wrong? (Not adding there shall be no smooth 0-100% mixture setting, just "weak" and "normal".) How on earth could anyone with more limited knowledge of how airplane engines work IRL find out what is wrong here? (And as there are no POH's released with the game, CEM is a sort of wizardry for common folk)

I can't ever remember refering to mixture as 100%. It's always been rich or lean. Most of the British planes in the sim go against modern convention with rich being to the rear of the cockpit and lean to the front. With two positions possible I wouldn't call it a bug that it operates as it did in real life. However the little sliders on the screen look is irrelevent. I've have it hooked up to a rocker switch, so the matches the animation on the screen.

Originally Posted by WT_Schmouddle

Someone here has mentioned the state in which ROF came out.
As I was a ROF betatester, I can openly claim that such mistakes were absent. The flying part of the ROF was top notch from day zero.
And comparing ROF and COD release - while ROF was released with more or less "Sorry guys, it is not ready yet, but we need to release and make some money, please support us, there is a list of to-do's" and in reality it was a very late beta, COD was released as next-gen ultimate WWII simulator being in very early beta.

Your experience with ROF differs significantly with mine. On my current computer ROF it was unplayable at its first release. Only after I upgraded to a Quad core and newer graphics card did I get acceptable frame rate. I haven't noticed a major performance increase with the ROF patches. I have in COD.

Name one other WWII Combat flight sim that does it better?

Originally Posted by WT_Schmouddle

And the support of customers reflect that. ROF found its supporters (I also own a majority of addon planes, just to keep them developing the offline campaign and keep a wish for an MMOWWICFS), while COD still struggles with 500 copies max ceiling on Steam.

Although very buggy, my few multiplayer missions in COD have been amazingly immersive trying to cope with CEM and temperature effects, while trying to find a target and get into a position to attack. Gameplay and visuals blows any other online sim I've played away bar none. It's that good!

Originally Posted by WT_Schmouddle

There were my 2c, shall I have only one wish, I beg yaysayer mods to leave my opinion here before baning me for being negative.

I don't think you've been that negative, you haven't been rude and stated your opinion! There is nothing wrong with that.

[nodlew]

In my eyes (and I am a mod elswhere, too) if they got banned you should have been banned too. If you were not, they shoud have not been banned neither.

I don't think they were banned for making one inflammatory statement. I think they were probably banned for making a general nuisance of themselves, and the moderators have the right to decide who is a nuisance and who isn't. When I make a total ass of myself to the detriment of the forum itself, I'm sure they will promptly ban me too.

[WT_Schmouddle]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I've only about 60Hours in light planes. Cessna's and Piper's and even after some very hairy landings (so hairy that at one stage the instructor pulled me up on a touch and go landing, jumped out and told me to fly it myself! ) and even I can say I've never bent a real airplane.

I haven't tried to land hard on purpose, maybe I'll give it a go next time to see?

So, we got similar flying time logged. (Very expensive hobby, don't you think, being an alcoholic must be...cheaper)
Well, majority of my landings are in awesome category of yours, sure, but had some nasty aswell, usualy with gusty crosswind. Remember one time just as I was bleeding airspeed prior to touchdown, you know, came a 10knot gust from nowehere...had a too little bank for crosswind and as it blew unsymetricaly it put me into 30° opposite bank, being too slow (70kmh) for full deflected ailerons to keep me level I just put full opposite rudder and firewalled the engine. Got outta that and REALLY watched my crosswind bank on next approach.

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I can't ever remember refering to mixture as 100%. It's always been rich or lean. Most of the British planes in the sim go against modern convention with rich being to the rear of the cockpit and lean to the front. With two positions possible I wouldn't call it a bug that it operates as it did in real life. However the little sliders on the screen look is irrelevent. I've have it hooked up to a rocker switch, so the matches the animation on the screen.

Yeah I got that on my Saitek Throttle Quadrant, which is more like a real airplane, no matter that there are actually only to usable positions. There are no rocker switches for misture in Blenheim, there are levers.

But still it puzzles me.
Having the mixture lever on throttle quadrant fully froward shows 100% of mixture in the GAME, yet it is 0% in the SIM and shall be reported as WEAK.
I really do not understand, how it is possible the GAME (aka layers over the simulation part) reports opposite what is being set and done in SIM. GAME reports 100% mixture, but the SIM counts with 0% and applies CEM damage models.

So it is like having thrust levers in Boeing reversed, with aft position actually being zero thrust, but the MFD's engine section would read 100% thrust.


Confusing for me, really, but I do not have 300 pax behind my seat.

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Your experience with ROF differs significantly with mine. On my current computer ROF it was unplayable at its first release. Only after I upgraded to a Quad core and newer graphics card did I get acceptable frame rate. I haven't noticed a major performance increase with the ROF patches. I have in COD.
Name one other WWII Combat flight sim that does it better?

I am sorry to hear that, but on my current rig the first release of ROF was playable on quite high settings (they fiddled with that, too) and I enjoyed good framerates ingame. (X4 -4 Gigs Ram- NV 260OC)

The difference between ROF and COD is, ROF had high demands to run on high settings, but it actualy ran in very, very good framerates without stuttering etc. It was also quite scalable and on lesser rigs was able to run decently. I know there was an issue with dualcores but I do not remember the reason. Anyway, during the betatest none of our squadmates with dualcores reported any issue.

That could not be said about COD, sorry to say. With my rig and medium settings, I had avg 19fps with heavy stutter in the release version.

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Although very buggy, my few multiplayer missions in COD have been amazingly immersive trying to cope with CEM and temperature effects, while trying to find a target and get into a position to attack. Gameplay and visuals blows any other online sim I've played away bar none. It's that good!

I am mainly an offliner, and there is not much progress from IL-2. I already spoke about the AI being more like AD, I do not thoroughly enjoy the FM (as I do in ROF), because I feel it is too easy, CEM is a bit of dissapointement for me as there are no POH's and I need to refer to other pilots while guessing what is right and what is wrong.
Anyway, whole CEM in Spits and Hurrics is down to not overrevving and/or overboost the engine. Pretty simple, at the end. (But I need to admit, I am not a casual simmer, I know how these system works and what happens to the machine when the sorry ape in cockpit thrusts this yellow lever here)

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I don't think you've been that negative, you haven't been rude and stated your opinion! There is nothing wrong with that.

Thanks.

[jibo]

WT_Schmouddle
your statements are wise and respectful to the team work,
those who were banned were basically calling for an end of 1c as a company and relentlessly trashing it which is unacceptable.
There is plenty of room for useful inputs and the team is glad to read them.