|
|
#121
09-25-2012, 05:14 PM
|
||||
|
||||
There's one good thing about this sorry situation
I can run MSFSX maxed-out on my CLOD rig.
__________________
Asus G-10 32gb GTX 760 3gb Last edited by bigchump; 09-25-2012 at 06:10 PM. Reason: typo 
|
|
#125
09-26-2012, 02:53 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 lets look at some of what we do know - CoD was a disaster because it was a forced premature release 1 yr to early - the initial scramble in the first 6 months to try and plug the holes and patch it didnt work to make it playable (other then for people who have a monster PC) or improve completion of content. some bug fixes were provided, but many bugs remained. - 1c/luthier then decided to rewrite the gfx engine from scratch and by doing so had to decide to largely abandon work on fixing CoD bugs or add features (this was bluntly stated months ago, yet people here keeping choosing not to accept this). obviously fixing the gfx engine was the most important issue for CoD, so it was in fact fixing CoD but was going to cause a MAJOR delay in time before it could be completed, but had the advantage of addressing the main issue for making BoM a success, so we cant blame him for making that hard choice (imposed by the bean counters). personally i see this as problematic for the reputation of il2-1C, and a big comprehensive final patch is badly needed to recover some of their reputation and prevent the bad reviews from not being revised later on as patches were released. this initial release of a "bad CoD" however provided them with enough funds to continue (rather then shut down the product series completely, so however counter intuitive it seems releasing it like that was actually good news odd as it may sound) - from then on 1/2 their programing team then worked exclusively on BoM as the next release (planes, game object, scenery) while the other half focused on the complete rebuild of the gfx engine and game engine - then for a long period CoD patches were non existent, communication ground to a halt (till B6 recently appeared), customer speculation mounted in the information vacuum. frustration increased in the forum and bad reviews online increased, but there is/was simply no manpower or resources to address CoD problems, no matter the volume of complaints. - august 2012 the first good performance patch was released, indicating the work to date from the gfx engine rebuilt the previous 12 months - september 2012 luthier confirms that there will only be one further bug fixing patch together with the further improved gfx engine work. after that BoM will contain any further fixes and can then be installed over CoD. luthier also indicates that the continuation of the whole SoW series will depend on the success of BoM, eg if these sales are NOT good within the first 6 months and they generate positive reviews to recoup their high standing in the sim market (which was going to be opened to 3e party designers of planes and scenery etc, remember ?), then they might have to close shop completely. this is something many people here fail to grasp ! meanwhile the little forum'itis in residence here keep running around in circles chasing their own tails by asking, demanding, screaming to fix this and that, and throwing insults around that they "want it now and deserve it now" and that luthier should talk to them NOW and is accountable to them personally. when luthier or B6 do appear they are subject to abuse and disrespect, who would stay around and try and have a normal conversation under those conditions ? and is anybody here providing them with the means to put more of their limited resources into fixing CoD, err no ! it is what it is, CoD was a forced release that has largely been abandoned, we were told as much over 9 months ago if you (and the others here) like flight sims ? want a chance to ever get a decent next gen ww2 flight sim ? then how about doing something positive to help it become true. that doesnt mean you cant be frustrated with the delays, but it would mean you actually help to do something to help it NOT FLOP ! in comparison, if you take somebody like Tree for ex, who was here for years constantly speculating on the negatives before it was even released because he felt hurt and slighted by the previous delays, then see how he rejoiced and was in glee when the release was problematic, and in a perverted sense of seeking attention he then continued to focus ONLY ON THE NEGATIVES since then. he even does so by giving new forum members deliberately misleading information and undermining their possible enjoyment of the sim. even now in a predictable fashion he would like nothing more then for BoM to fail as well, and even if it is reasonably good on release (yes, and with a few bugs omg the sky is falling) and this better product allows the series to continue to improve further in the next years, it is easy to predict tree will STILL do nothing but complain about it. is that what you want to become a part of ? given that progress on CoD is very slow and BoM some time away in the future, rather then be frustrated with CoD's problems just see yourself as a highly trained beta tester who is perfectly placed to provide constructive feedback for a great ww2 flightsim in the making (the fixed CoD and BoM), and do something about helping it become true (while you go off and play other games you might find less frustrating). the most practical thing i can think of in that regard is for the community to get an organized and provide well documented list of major bugs and gameplay problems, and have them in priority of importance and focused on addressing both general gameplay issues (like lack of multiplayer co-op) as well as bug fixes (reversed controls, some gauges not working), FM errors in aircraft performance, specific DM errors, and important lack of features (inability to set specific FoV's for monitor size for ex). and no, a user run bug tracking website and a few long technical threads on some frustrating bugs for CoD is not enough in that regard, we cant rely or depend on luthier and their tech's to go trawling thru those and pick out a few snippets of wisdom. there is only going to be ONE more chance to get some badly needed fixes and (small) new features in CoD, if we want this to be as good as possible we need to help present this information in an orderly and systematic fashion to luthier (because his lack of time doesnt allow him to be as thorough as we would like, and the current "bug report" thread in this forum is a major jumbled cluster of bugs/errors/missing-features that sets no indication of priority or significance) ) so what is your choice, the blue pill or the red pill ? life will never be the same after (choose between hammering nails in the coffin of CoD and sabotage the development of BoM, or help create a fixed CoD and a decent BoM).
__________________
President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children Last edited by zapatista; 09-26-2012 at 03:46 AM.
|
|
#126
09-26-2012, 04:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If they go out of business it's their own fault. It's not the community's responsibility to keep them afloat financially. It's MG's responsibility to deliver a product that is worth paying for, and to keep themselves afloat. So far, they have failed miserably to do that. The abysmal state of CoD has already used up all MG's good will, and if the sequel isn't stellar then I won't be purchasing. Quote:
Last edited by CaptainDoggles; 09-26-2012 at 04:17 AM.
|
|
#127
09-26-2012, 04:18 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Clod/BoB was originally planned for release in 2007, after missing it's 2006 deadline. It certainly wasn't released a year early by any stretch of the truth.
|
|
#128
09-26-2012, 05:48 AM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
on the one hand you are willfully disregarding anything positive about the current SoW series (of which you currently own a beta) which is a tangible product you already have in your hands and know the near future development line off (BoM), and which is something you can directly contribute to (no, not in money) by providing constructive feedback, but on the other hand you are willing to put all your eggs into the one basket hoping for some vague distant project that doesnt even exist (based on rumors) and that might or might not manifest ? to me that sequence of logic just does not compute. why not help support current development that you can, and hope for the best for all the others ? that would make more sense to me. the DCS p51 project is the most promising, but just one look at the low rez ground textures and scenery content, and then comparing it to what already works in CoD (err the french scenery in partic ) shows how different the focus of those 2 products is. having a jet sim with poor low altitude scenery is one thing, but for ww2 prop sims this is very important (and is the big killer in gfx engine design)comparing those, you have an existing one half of one product (CoD) versus pure speculation and wishful thinking of several other "potentials" (none of which are even in development). btw, even DCS makes people pay for their beta stage, so expect no instant finished product there any time soon all those here that long awaited the il2 sequel are frustrated, including me, but right now it boils down to what direction we want the scales to tip in. i know where tree stands in that regard, and i greatly prefer to make some small contributions to increase the likelihood of SoW becoming a reality, of which part of the outcome is directly in our hands.
__________________
President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children Last edited by zapatista; 09-26-2012 at 05:53 AM.
|
|
#129
09-26-2012, 06:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
with the team still under direction of Oleg up to the last 6 months before the forced release (eg up to sept 2010) they knew they had major problems in meeting that date and would need significantly more time (prob about 1 yr, by my guesstimate). most here will remember the anticipated release date of early 2011 (which was already a slipped date from what they intended to be a sept/oct 2010 release, indicated by the memorable oleg statement in 2009 of " by the anniversary of BoB 1000's would be playing it"). the money people put their foot down and forced a release, oleg left, and luthier took over to try and save the sinking ship. that series of events was the "forced premature release of an unfinished product" that would have been in much better shape if they had the extra year, which is not the same as some changed fluid timelines in a reasonably well funded long term project that kept postponing completion while they got ever more ambitious and kept adding in new elements
__________________
President Dwight D. Eisenhower 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone, it is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children Last edited by zapatista; 09-26-2012 at 06:59 AM.
|
|
#130
09-26-2012, 06:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
