Friday Update - December 9, 2011

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.


In the Battle of Moscow,it will be interesting to see how historically accurate the , unreliable, underpowered, overheating to the point of combustion, oil spewing Yaks and LaGG's are modeled. Including the the yellow windscreen and canopy "feature".

I hope the Developers " discuss with some members of the community" the next theater . I know they certainly do not owe us this courtesy but it could generate some additional interest, at present this appears to be waning.

I have seriously doubt beacuse 1C wasn't able to made correctly performance and flight models for only a few BOB planes. They all have serious issues. So i really dont expect too much reality from Battle of Moscow planes.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Because it's you Titus, I'm adding this to my sig

sig fame at last!

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

Make way for the multi quotes.....again

do you not like the Mighty Wall of Text?

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

do you not like the Mighty Wall of Text?

NO

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Ze-Jamz

NO

Have to agree, what's with the pulling apart and analysing of a persons post... its beyond ridiculous and can completely change the whole meaning of a posters paragraph.

[Gourmand]

Question 2, 6 and 11 should not be lower priority
it's not just cosmetic to be killed by aircraft when we sank or aircraft landed with the cockpit in fire...

and lights is cosmetic?
how do a night flight without wing lights???

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by md_titus

do you not like the mighty wall of text?

rotfl!

my wall is bigger than your wall!

[Peril]

Originally Posted by BlackSix

Hello!



18. When you are going to add Structural Limits to the FM's? (maximum allowable g acceleration on the aircraft structure. And the aircraft damage due to exceeding the Vne or maximum g acceleration).

Quote:
Nothing causes more frustration on both sides than discussing structural limits. We do have a structural limit model already, and we will improve it. However it does not nor will it work like the model created by Team Daidalos. If this was question 1 or 2 I’d perhaps be more verbose. Most aircraft that exceeded their structural limit are written off on the ground, and the fact is established with a careful measurement with a fine ruler.

For what it's worth I agree on the DM choices being made.

There is realism, and then there is 'sensationalism!' The latter is what game developers create to sell more games to kids (wow factor). FPS games for example, how many shots does it take to kill someone 'realistically'.

Planes don't fly apart because they exceed VNE on a single occasion, not unless it has a fault anyway. This kind of damage is more accumulative than instantaneous. Any high amount of G that would instantly break a plane up would likely kill the pilot first anyway.

Realism doesn't traditionally sell games/sims, lets hope they have a big enough market to stick to this hard line. In the end it's always about the money for a commercial enterprise to survive.

[addman]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I agree to some extent. The developers bank account and the publishers are probably pushing the developers to do another paid sequel as soon as possible. Then they will have more time and money to flesh out the missing or unworking features. Of course a few of the missing and unworking features should be working by the time the Battle for Moscow comes out. This scenario will probably evolve the same way with each added theater. Overtime average computers will be more powerfull allowing for larger theaters, and more advanced features. This has been a long hard road for the developer, and I don't see it getting much easier until the game engine is more refined and capable.

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth". The problem in this day and age is that smaller game developers are having a harder and harder time to cope, making advanced PC/video games whilst lacking the mighty funding from publishers such as EA or Activision as an example. Yes, there are enormous possibilities for game developers right now but it also requires more manpower and funding behind them.

I think this might be one of the reasons why CloD was rushed the way it was. You just have to look in the control settings menu in CloD to realize the ambition that Oleg and his team had but alas, when the mighty dollar speaks, everybody has to obey. I bet it's actually easier to create something solid in a limited environment where choices are fewer then having too many options/ideas and leaving most of them half-baked. CloD is lacking focus, it's sprouting out in every direction, it doesn't have a foot-hold or a solid foundation to grow from yet but hopefully that will be rectified in the not so distant future.

You can't keep developing for the next generation and the next generation in mind only. You have to think about what you want to achieve, what you want to create first then you look which technology can help you achieve these goals, not the other way around. That's what happened to Duke Nukem Forever, they kept replacing game engines for like 12 years! and when it finally was released it barely looked like a DirectX 9 game and the game itself (the important stuff) was total and utter crap, I played the demo...unfortunately.

To the point, new technology is a good thing but it doesn't guarantee a good game.

[Gourmand]

for the sequel
for the sequel
for the sequel
...



i hope the feature in the sequel will be backward compatible with cliff of dover ( less buying the sequel), i bought the collector 70€, and the feature will for the sequel?!?

for the open radiator :
if you start flight with plane whose begin flying, you should hurry up to open your radiators i think this question is for this case, having a normal radiator opening with airstart aircraft ( like the gear up, the engin started... )

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by addman

I feel this is a very common misconception around here, the misconception that "with time, technology of high spec PC's will allow this and that and so on and so fourth".

When I read Chivas post..

I got the impression he was making a reference to the new CoD graphics engine..

That the new CoD graphics enigne is bringing the current crop (read average) PC and video card to its knees (read poor FPS)

But with time the advancement of the PC hardware will make this a none issue.

As was the case with IL-2

When it originally came out some 10 years ago, its graphics enigne was bringing the current crop (read average) of PCs and video cards at that time to thier knees also

But some 10 years later what with all the PC hardware advancement even a cheap PC with a cheap video card can run IL-2 smoothly.

The point being, 3 to 4 years from now you will not see anyone complaining about poor FPS in CoD and it's sequels.

Not some blanket statement that PC hardware advancements solves all developer problems