Friday Update, Q&A - December 23, 2011 - Page 9

katdogfizzow · #81 12-23-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ataros

Could you please explain to luthier that COOP does not work as it is being discussed on these forums for 9 months already.

Links explaining details:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27934

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28429

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...ighlight=coops

And in bugreports section @ sukhoi.ru here and below http://www.sukhoi.ru/forum/showthrea...=1#post1713252

Quality control goes FUBAR when manufacturers refuse to use their own product. If you or Ilya tried to fly COOP at least once within these 9 months you would not be able to give us such an answer.

41Sqn_Banks was doing his best to fix that issue http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=28559
However I personally do not think community can or should care about a product more than developers do. Same goes for fixing TrackIR issues in 109 which were reported at sukhoi but were ignored and many others. Please try to use your product in order to speak the same language with other forum participants. I am sure this will be a turning point in quality control and understanding questions that community asks before replying to them.

The key MG feature that brought MG to success in the past was "Attention to details" as Oleg kept repeating. Was it lost with Softclub merger or forcing Oleg out? Please get "Attention to details" back if it is not too late. A product without attention to details in quality control can sell more or less in 3rd world countries but not in the USA or Europe that Ilya should be able to understand better than others.

Just my personal subjective opinion of cause.

PS. http://www.columbia.edu/~sss31/rainbow/soap.story.html

Thanks for the update and interview.

I must agree that I hope COOP will one day be enabled like the old IL2:1946. I suppose it's easy to see why one might not understand the concept if you never played that game mode and are busy actually creating the game itself. (Just like I don't understand how players like non-historical maps) However, if you are a historical flyer, like I think most ww2 simmers are, you haven't lived until you've flown COOP with 6 of your buddies on a Phil_K multilayer coop campaign (or similar). We've flown the historical doolittle raid, defended Midway, flew as torpedo squadron 8, Iwo Jima on and on...ALL in COOP, never even considered playing any other gamestyle...

Some of the best missions ever created for flight sims were created in COOP. Lowland Tiger Meet ran tournaments in Europe for 11 years based on the concept! Their missions are the greatest!
http://www.mission4today.com/index.p...=search&sa=441
http://www.lowlandtigermeet.com/

It is the only way 12 of our small group flew IL2 1946 for 6 years and hundreds and hundreds of hours. Only 2 of us have the new sim due to sub par hardware by the other members. We're hoping that the new engine will allow get more players involved.

More explanation here on why COOP is necessary:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27934

Perhaps there are scripts and workarounds that fix the gametype. I'm not sure. It seems like an easy fix? Anyway, It's great fun flying on the ATAG server in a somewhat similar fashion. No complaints here...just some wants!

jamesdietz · #82 12-23-2011, 03:33 PM

I know its been asked before,& not sure if it was addressed this time,but I have to ask:is low FPS to be addressed anytime soon? I love this sim but my gameplay ( like so many others) is hindered by low ( 10-12FPS) lowdown & even lower when dusk or smoke or clouds are present.Just improving this as soon as possible would make a big big difference to me.Its wonderful to think of a new campaign ,new maps & all the other things that will /might come along( just look at Il-2FBPF 1946 esp after Modders got hold of it...)but right now I need to know that better performance is a priority or if I have to buy a new graphics card to get this thing moving.
I'd love to see all that was promised and shown in CloD ( SoW) finishedbefore moving on...

ETC. ETC.

csThor · #83 12-23-2011, 03:39 PM

If that was the cause then the reaction is still lightyears off. Simply put CloD without at least a british warship doesn't allow for a decent Kanalkampf, taking away a lot from the more tactical part of the Battle. Like I said ... priorities like this I don't understand and never will.

addman · #84 12-23-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csThor

It needs to be thematically sound, needs to have all the relevant objects and aircraft, it will need a much less complicated and nerve-wracking GUI, it will need a campaign system that is worth the title ... In short it will need to contain everything that CloD is missing right now. That's a tall order, especially since Maddox Games was never particularly good at developing gameplay factors or not wasting effort on pointless objects/aircraft.

Yes to all of that and here's hoping MG can pull it off, really hoping.

Bakelit · #85 12-23-2011, 03:42 PM

"New ground or other objects will not happen due to the fact that our previous attempts to add them were met with a universal “we don’t need this crap, why don’t you give us xyz instead” from the community. The ground modeling staff and myself have subsequently made the fully switch that department to the sequel."

I would have kissed feet if important objects - relevant - to the convoy phase would have been added ! But then we have the MkVI light tank with moveable antenna which decided the outcome of WW2 as we all know. So I really can't complain.

To really work through the simulated BoB was my aim in buying this sim. BoB2:WoV after many years is still the better sim for this conflict. And by the way, would not a Battle of France sequel make more sense, with map and many objects already available?

Forgive me, but I'm utterly disappointed of this whole affair

.

addman · #86 12-23-2011, 03:45 PM

Luthier's online, maybe he could enlighten us on the current affairs of the game?

luthier · #87 12-23-2011, 03:46 PM

Hey folks,

I see that these answers led some folks here, and most of the folks on my favorite sukhoi.ru, to read between the lines and see my answers to specific questions as indications of larger-scale abandonment of the project.

That's not the case at all.

I answered specific questions and didn't touch on the larger effort. It remains the same. Sped up graphics, launcher errors, improved FM, etc, all of that is in progress as previously stated.

We are trying to pull off a very difficult balancing act with developing a new game and supporting an old one at the same time. Pretty much no one does that. Most large developers simply release games, support them for a month at the most, and then switch to new paid content regardless of the state of the game. We are however trying not only to patch up major issues, we're working on improving things that generally work - and we're doing that for free seven months after release. We are doing that by trying to parallel tasks as much as possible and improving CoD while developing a sequel.

That is however simply not possible with some features. In some cases that's a question of limited resources. We cannot make a new flyable for CoD because that means one less flyable for the sequel. With other tasks it's simply a matter of time. Some of the changes we're making are so sweeping, they're scheduled to be completed very close to the sequel's ship date. The animation for example is such a huge task with so many facets that we can't just take it, turn it into a half a gig patch, and release it for CoD a month before the release of the sequel.

And to make sure to drive my main point across. We are still working on improving CoD. No one's abandoned it. There will be patches. My answers about things in the sequel were meant for those specific features. Please don't try to read between the lines!

klem · #88 12-23-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David198502

bad news for cliffs indeed.
and some answers are really disappointing, as luthier seems not to want to understand.
i mean they arent aware of the dots visibility bug?for how long do we customers complain about that major bug, which really ruins online gaming?
and now we are told we have to wait for the sequel....well another 6 years?

What makes you think we will have to wait for the sequel for the re-written graphics? We have been told already....

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=265

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=27926

"The graphics reload has finally reached a sufficiently stable alpha state. Public beta is within reach."

We know there is a problem with that and it has caused a delay of the patch release but I don't recall anyone who knows whats happening in MG saying it won't be released until the sequel.

btw, Q.19 didn't ask about the graphics reload, it asked about the graphics effects (weather etc).

Also answered most clearly in question 15...
"We didn’t get to this yet. The dots are drawn by the part of the graphics code that’s been completely rewritten. We didn’t get to look into this particular issue with the new code yet."

EDIT: My post crossed Luthier's. I think that's what he is saying about "sped up graphics" and "there will be patches".

Insuber · #89 12-23-2011, 03:49 PM

much clearer now Luthier. Thank you for stopping our speculations.

ACE-OF-ACES · #90 12-23-2011, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackSix

Are you planning to transfer the new graphic effects (eg, weather) from future sequels into Cliffs of Dover?

Quote:

We’ll work along the model similar to the old Il-2. There’s a single progression line from version to version dotted by sequels.
For example, we never released a patch for Forgotten Battles that contained new code from Pacific Fighters. The way to get it was to buy PF and merge it into FB. That’s exactly how it will be with CoD.

Woot!

Best news yet! I just knew 1C would not ditch the 1C IL-2 way of doing things (aka track record)!