|
|
#121
12-11-2012, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would like to see this as a model not exactly like the RoF one but similar.. WWII planes well me more complicated .. I just hope that it is not a step backwards. Again.. WE shall see.. Int he meantime I'll still be firing up IL2. 
|
|
#123
12-11-2012, 09:02 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
It is playable. Where have you been for the past 6 months?
|
|
#125
12-11-2012, 10:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So, an eventful day, and finally the much awaited and speculated upon announcement.
I'm a little taken aback at it all and feel a mix of sadness (though not surprise) at the final confirmation that COD has indeed failed, but also hope and optimism that the future could be brighter. Speaking for myself COD never ever fulfilled the promise or the hope that I had for it, and it has been evident over the past year that progress was painfully slow verging on non-existent. My faith that COD would be fixed had been wavering for months and I had concluded that significant improvements would have to wait for the sequel even before the final official patch declared work 'complete'. I've read a lot of the comments on this forum and the new one and feel that some very hasty judgements are being made before we have seen the detail of what is to come. There are two main arguments that have been made (very vociferously by some) that I want to comment on. The first is that COD was on the verge of turning the corner and that its engine should have been used in the future. I think the truth is to be found both from reading between the lines of today's official announcement and from an honest appraisal of what has happened in the 18+ months since COD was released. In answer to the question: Why was the Digital Nature engine chosen instead of the CLOD engine? The answer describes the Digital Nature engine as: "being relatively bug free and well-functioning" compared to the COD engine presumably, and "Using the Digital Nature engine will provide users with a well-functioning product at launch that can be brought to market fairly quickly." We can also conclude from the painfully slow progress made remedying COD's initial faults that the engine was an absolute bugger to fix - remember Luthier confidently stating last year that the patch was 'almost done' and should be out before Christmas (2011 that is...). That is the patch that we got in final form a few months ago! The only way to explain such a massive delay is by concluding that they continually ran into unforeseen and hard to resolve issues deep in the code. I suspect that there were deep design flaws. How else to explain Luthier's admission that the only remedy for the non-collidable trees was to have far fewer of them in the next game!! It seems clear that the biggest reason for COD's failure was poor management decisions regarding the scope and scale of the project. They tried to do too much, bit off much more than they could handle and unfortunately failed on a lot of the basics. Some examples - why, in a Battle of Britain scenario, was so much effort expended on exquisitely detailed but superfluous vehicles, when NO Royal Navy ships were completed? How much did we really need to be able to change our pilot's outfits?! The effort put into driveable vehicles and mannable AA guns also must have deflected effort and attention from other more important areas. Because of this so much of what they tried to do was unfinished or implemented in a half-assed manner. Dynamic weather, the original sound engine that had to be redone from scratch, the flawed unfinished AI, the poor quality in-flight chatter (worse than original il-2), the commands system, the appalling GUI, even the fact that a year and a half after release there was no properly functioning AA. It's clear that the project is now going to be run by the ROF management team and imo that's good news. Some are complaining that this means we will get a project with much tighter scope and with features left out. Probably true, but as I argue above COD's downfall was Luthier/Oleg's apparent inability to leave out any feature at all, no matter how minor. The second issue is complaints about the perceived capabilities of the ROF/Digital Nature engine I don't think any of us know exactly what the engine will be capable of with further work and development. It will obviously be changed in a major way from its current capabilities so much of the criticism I've seen is premature and a little childish I think. It's pretty obvious that a WW2 sim will require more complex modelling of cockpit and engine systems than a WW1 sim. Just because the Digital Nature implementation in ROF does not currently have certain features does not say anything at all about what it will have in 2014. For example, ROF doesn't have any radio comms at all - none - nothing - zilch, but I think we can all agree that it is highly likely the dev team are aware of the need to provide such a feature for a WW2 sim and will be working on it over the next year. Ditto for almost every other complaint I've seen thrown at ROF so far. Cut them some slack. Let's be a bit patient and support what could be a very exciting future for the flight-sim community. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now can I claim my prize for longest post ever!? Up yours Blackdog_KT 
__________________
i5-2500K @3.3GHz / 8GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1600 / Asus P8P67 / GTX-260 (216) / WD 500GB Samsung 22" 1680x1050 / Win7 64 Home Premium CH Combat Stick / CH Pro Throttle / Simped Rudder Pedals Last edited by kendo65; 12-11-2012 at 10:19 PM.
|
|
#126
12-11-2012, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
this will be engine of ALL new simulators !!! Last edited by pirke; 12-11-2012 at 10:09 PM.
|
|
#127
12-11-2012, 10:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Don B EVGA X79 Dark MB| I7 4820Kcpu @ 4.5 ghz|16gb Corsair 2100 MHZ DDR3 ram|EVGA GTX 970 FTW 4GB |SoundBlaster Z PCIe soundcard | TM Warthog HOTAS | Saitek Combat Pedals | Track IR5 | Windows 8.1 64 bit
|
|
#128
12-11-2012, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Looking back, perhaps we expected too much for little cost from CoD. RoF has cost me ten times as much as CoD over a similar period. Best Regards, MB_Avro
|
|
#130
12-11-2012, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Death of CLoD
Like many I thought the vision and scope of CLoD was a winner and far more advanced than any other offering. So a sad day to see it crash and burn.
While I bought Cross of Iron - ROF, and admired many features of it, it did not grab me as much as CLoD. I wish the new team super good luck and I hope the Digital Nature engine can be pushed much further than what we currently see in ROF. If you are a Flight Simmer it is a given that you need decent hardware. For a 2014 release forget about XP and maybe even Vista. Let's hope they set a decent minimum standard and push the digital nature code.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
