Oleg's dream

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

I think he bit off more than MG could comfortably chew. CoD became overdesigned and top heavy with complex features. He got off track between the need to make a simulator, and the urge to make a replica.

It was never Olegs way to admit an error or to back down in the face of public opinion (the 190 bar is still right and Il-2's sound is excellent, it's just our sound system that is wrong etc.). So when CoD began to look like it needed fundamental changes at a core level, he headed for the door.

It is a realistic scenario. Add to that the the lack of management, the delays and the subsequent budget issues, all turning around a talented visionary man, with his aura of infallibility after the incredible planetary success of Il2 series.
It took a bit to the top management to regain control of this beast, but I hope that they're back in track now, with Oleg's ideas coupled with a more solid project management.

[Baron]

Originally Posted by TeeJay82

And all of this agony could have been avoided if they had sold it as beta and not a final product

Final product? there is no such thing in Flight sims. Never have never will.

Like i said, that doesnt matter now and thats just the way it is.

People can keep on harping on it (to what end i do not know) but it wont change anything.

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by Redroach

Yet this obsession with detail is what is expected from CoD. Il-2 was committed to realism, it did great for its time and people liked it very much. Which is quite logical, as most of the WW2 aviation buffs would want to re-enact the deeds of their 'heroes' as realistically as possible.
And CoD just HAD to ramp up the realism standards by a fair margin, there's no doubt about that. Actually, things like gear wheels spinning down while being retracted, that is the very thing that keeps me attached to CoD. Without the rich realism features, there would be nothing that distinguishes it from random simulation XY and no one would even talk about the botched release of CoD anymore.

I agree with this. Whatever the problems with Clod, one can't argue that it's a very ambitious project with a lot of amazing details.

[Trumper]

Originally Posted by proton45

Yea...the "heart" of the community seems to be non existent. If you show any kind of support for the development team, or what Oleg has done...people brand you a "kiss arse", or a "follower", or whatever it is that negative people say.

Actually it works both ways,if you make any negative comments constructive or otherwise you will also be shouted down.
I hope Luthier and his team are allowed to carry on ,not sure what restrictions they will have time wise or financially.
The release in the USA will be critical and a good indication of any further commitments.
If it goes quiet after the release in the USA then we will know BUT if work continues for a year after it will be a golden nugget.
Olegs dream of an all encompassing war sim is a long way off as it stands but it could be a way forward.
If Luthier and team do finish then i hope the sim is opened up to 3rd party high quality modders.

[Redroach]

It may be subjective, but the 'good-spirited' guys seem to create their drama for themselves. I've seen very few posts chastising guys for being faithful to CoD, yet there seem to be many posts claiming the victim role...
And to MD_Titus, regarding 'late' registration dates: Sooo you feel superior for having klicked on "register" earlier and played the anticipation game in full length, huh? Well, keep your beliefs, no issue taken. In fact, I don't even care. That's just too ridiculous.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally Posted by Redroach

...My bet is that the only guy that could remotely handle the programming necessary for CoD was Oleg.

I'm not sure. Oleg was very good at accepting the lions share of recognition for the Il-2 series and he very rarely gave much by way of introduction or acknowledgement to his team. Certainly not in the way that the RoF team do at any rate. The Il-2 and CoD staff remain a shadowy bunch to this day. It is quite possible that the very talented coders who helped make Il-2 such a success have long since moved on.

[Pudfark]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

I'm not sure. Oleg was very good at accepting the lions share of recognition for the Il-2 series and he very rarely gave much by way of introduction or acknowledgement to his team. Certainly not in the way that the RoF team do at any rate. The Il-2 and CoD staff remain a shadowy bunch to this day. It is quite possible that the very talented coders who helped make Il-2 such a success have long since moved on.

Your last sentence....that's what I've been thinking.
It seems to make a great deal of sense...

Any comparisons made between CLOD and IL2 are meaningless now...
For all we know? Luthier is the only one working to fix this misrepresented,
incomplete mess. I sincerely hope he is capable of it.

Right now?
I feel like a passenger on the sinking Titanic...holding a "round trip ticket"....
Why do I feel this way?
Because of the intentional lack of accurate information presented thus far.
Why this omission?
The answer is obvious.
Their answer is obvious as well.

[Redroach]

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

I'm not sure. Oleg was very good at accepting the lions share of recognition for the Il-2 series and he very rarely gave much by way of introduction or acknowledgement to his team. Certainly not in the way that the RoF team do at any rate. The Il-2 and CoD staff remain a shadowy bunch to this day. It is quite possible that the very talented coders who helped make Il-2 such a success have long since moved on.

hmm could be that way 'round as well, yes

[Blackdog_kt]

I think it's way to early to be having a discussion about the potential of a 3rd party industry around CoD, especially if you consider that even in the microsoft FS series (the champion in terms of 3rd party industry, payware and freeware alike) it takes a couple of years for add-on makers to move from one title to the next.

I've known a lot of people who kept using FS2004 because FSX was still too buggy, too much of a resource hog, etc etc and the add-on companies were getting similar feedback from their forums. The result was that even today, a lot of add-ons are released both for FSX and for FS2004. Microsoft is developing MS Flight (which is supposed to be next in the series) and yet, people haven't completely moved on from FS2004 to FSX yet.

In other words, it takes way more time for a 3rd party industry to develop around any flight sim. So don't panic just because there's not a few dozen companies churning out add-ons for CoD just yet.



On another note

Originally Posted by Baron

They? They? You are joking, right?

Theese freeking forums wouldnt back of from ANYTHING until Oleg and team bend t over and did as they where told regarding every little FREEKING detail, and i do mean EVERY detail. Changing colour of grass (witch, needless to say, came out wrong all the same, naturally, according to those who "knows") doesnt take any time what so ever, does it? Markings, correct size, font and colour of course, on all planes, at the EXACT right spot, dont worry, done in a jiffy. Correct crop marks, no sweat. Clickable cockpit? Sure why not, i`ll do it during my coffee break. Pilot headsize, colour of engine flames, dhu, of course WE know best. Antennas 1 m to far to the front? Do it again and do it right.Dynamic weather? sure, give me, but if i cant run it on my P4 i want my money back or ill report it as a fail/bug/broken to everyone and anyone who will listen, even to those who have better things to do (afaik the dynamic weather isnt broken). Dynamic lighting, why, everyone else is using it so it can take any time, can it? etc. etc. etc ad nauseum. Doesnt matter, what time spent on it, it still comes out wrong according to all the experts. (Honestly, i dont even understand why they bother). Never ever could the team reveal a new feature without it beeing followed by sh*t storm of expert opinions that wouldnt take no for an answer. And it still continuous to this day with the patches. (not talking about adult bug reporting, im talking whining and bitching "i want my money back" mentality) Because u do know, that if it doesnt work on MY pc the game is broken/buggy and needs to be set on fire and forgotten by EVERYONE, right? Doesnt matter if i cant get it to work on lap top (jesus) its still a bust i tell u.

What many of u fail to understand is that this criticism of CoD has been going on for years, literally, and the buggy, like most completely new releases (No, its not warmed over IL2 Sturmovik and if u think that i cant be bothered with "u") was only the straw that broke the camels back. It would have been a lot less buggy, if the community would have been kept out of the loop like in most game developments. Alot less "essential" features = more time to what really counts, "eye candy" can be added/tweaked later.

Iv come to realize that a lot of people here and at other CoD forums isnt happy unless there is something to give "constructive criticism" about, ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Oleg`s/dev teams problem, more than anything, is listening way to much to the community. AFTER the game was released, that would be fine, but not during critical development.

But you are right, Oleg and team promised/wanted to much because they wanted to please the IL2 community. The thing is, that u and everyone thinking the same, actually hold this against them when it didnt turn out as everyone hoped, and that, in my book, is the lowest of low. (sry if it comes across as an insult, really isnt directed at u personally)

So, please, get back to reality. (not just u) The more "real" we want it the more buggy/complicated its gonna be and the more time it takes. Is that something that needs to be said, or is hard to understand? (if u or anyone respond with anything even remotly tuching the subject of AA or FSAA for ex., ill scream. Try looking at the big picture and how everything is connected before responding with something thats been said a gazillion times allredy)

Just for once i wich people would look at what we DO have but something tells me that alot of it is way over their heads in term of complexity so its completely missed or seen as a "given" (comparing BF3 or god knows what else with CoD kind of reinforces that feeling). Instead, look at what we have compared to what we had before, IL2 (not counting bugs thats not really a suprise they are there this early to begin with and lets face it, IL2 is far from perfect or bug free) and not what "you`r" head thought/wished it would be after all these years of fantasising. RoF for ex, was faaaar from perfect on release. its taken them 2, count them, 2 years getting a descent campaign working.

At this point it doesnt matter one bit that u people think u have been "cheated" into buying a beta, cold hard truth i know, but if it really pains u that much to have this game on your pc, remove it and pretend it hasnt been released yet and let those who at least appreciate getting to see the game first hand instead of through friday updates (witch, in all honesty, only gave us headaches) after waiting 5 years, instead of having to hear endless complaints about not being released yet, do thire "thing" so we can get somewhere, anywhere but at this point in time = a Cod we all want.

It takes time, doesnt really matter what "U" (not u in particular) think it SHOULD take, it doesnt make it go any faster, deal with it or move on.


Holy moley, rants off.

I'll go ahead and agree with this even though i wouldn't phrase it exactly the same way, but the general sentiment described in the above quote is accurate. This is exactly what the majority of the community has been doing for the past 5 years: "I want it all, i want it better and more complicated than it was in IL2, i want it bug-free and i want it yesterday and for a reasonable price".

Well, things in the real world don't work out all rose and butterflies most of the time


I too asked for a couple of features i liked and i supported features proposed by others, in some cases with a lot of tenacity because i truly believed they would bring some added value to the gameplay experience.

The difference is that i knew something's got to give, so i was willing to either wait until they get it all done, or buy a half-finished product that contains the foundations of everything we asked for and wait for it to get patched to completion.

Just take down a list of names and you'll see that the people who moaned the most about the release delays and clamored for it to be released sooner are usually the ones who today provide expert advice on why the release should have been delayed.

Comedy like this is too good to be experienced free of charge. If they charge an admission fee for every time they contradict themselves things will quiet down very fast around here as they'll recoup the amount of money they spent on the sim in no time, heck some of them could make enough to buy a real Spitfire that way

[philip.ed]

Yes, the community has done that, but the team have never responded to say: "that's funny. But seriously, you'll get what you're given". Oleg had promised features like dynamic campaigns, new sound systems etc which doesn't help alleviate the fact that the game has none of these features on release. And despite the glamour of various aspects of the game, I won't fork out the money for a new PC until I know that the Battle of Britain is even in the game.

And regarding release, the game has been in development for a long time, and many were under the impression that the development updates were all obsolete and that the team was actually withholding the holy grail of flight sims. I guess the grail is there somewhere, but it's definite not holy (just holey).