Thursday Update, April 19, 2012

[smink1701]

Hopes dashed once again. It must be a BIG issue or else they probably would have let it out the door. My biggest fear (figuratively speaking), is that when it does arrive, most will be able to tell the difference. Luthier has already stated that the look will be the same. Maybe it will run better on some machines but probably not all. Nothing about the new, glorious sounds Luthier mentioned months ago. After all this time the patch should really exceed our expectations to avoid the "We've waited six months for this. My fingers are crossed for team Luthier that this puppy blows us away, everyone (most everyone ) starts drinking the 1C Kool-Aid once again and starts saving for the sequel.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

>>Yes, his comments that the devs should fill him in on the details of the problem are totally realistic.<<

Of course not, he is merely continuing down your rhetorical path with a hop,skip, and a jump. As you well know.

He's not continuing anything I said. He accused them of lying. There's only 1 way to solve that problem. Give Tree the code.

[No145_Bunny]

Well I too bought CLoD a year ago and was like a happy school kid on Xmas day.

But I have learnt now to live with the crushing dissapointment that is CLoD now.

Some of the posts here do make me laugh though, instead of whining about CLoD go out a and play the best WW2 flight sim there is - IL2 1946. CLoD /BoM will never better it - not if you wait for 5 years!

Bunster

Hayward said:

>>Nothing rhetorical about it. Tree has accused them of lying about problems with the update. <<

Your posts remind me of the creepy kid always trying to get someone in trouble in the classroom. Consistently.

>>I have no idea why they'd lie about it, but I'd definitely like to see Tree's evaluation of the code. <<

Oh you little saint you. Butter wouldn't melt. Rhetorical is exactly the right word.

Tree may go a little far at times, but at least his reaction stems from a palpable sense of shock over the realse, and what has happened since. It is an honest, emotive reaction, and good for that.

Infinitely better than your squealing yelps of 'teacher, did you see that...?' and cursive stubborn high-horse questioning.

Frustration is allowed, and sometimes to be vented. Smarmy snide cheap-shots are generally to be avoided.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Tree may go a little far at times, but at least his reaction stems from a palpable sense of shock over the realse, and what has happened since. It is an honest, emotive reaction, and good for that.

It's been a year since the release mess. Get over it.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Well I wouldn't go that far, Im not here to make a flight sim, I already paid for one just over a year ago, i just want the one I already got to start working correctly at some point soon. I dont see your problem David, Im happy that you are more than content with your broken toy, it brings you joy and you love it, but some of us are not, you should respect our right to be miffed like i respect your right to be a hapless fanboy.

If I offer you to buy back your copy, will you finally stfu?

Hayward said (of Tree):

>>You said you wanted the truth. Here in the real world that implies that you think they're lying to you. <<

Crap. There is no if/then conditional statement in these two clauses that shows the second follows on directly from the first...if you want to get picky about it.

It may be a bit daft to ask for a narrow definition of where the code is going wrong - a bit like if you knew where you'd lost something, it wouldn't be lost - but no need for this get-a-reaction and snitch stuff. Low, low...

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

It may be a bit daft to ask for a narrow definition of where the code is going wrong -

Then you agree with me.

[HessleReich]

BOOOOM!

This thread went south old boy.

+1 to lateral thinking.

Hayward said:

>>Then you agree with me<<

No. I think you're a selective-quoting prat.