Friday Update - December 9, 2011

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by superman

Oleg was very very specific about not promising anything as I remember.


But I too got my expectations very high.


Like so many things in life, if you don't match your expectations with real world you will have an endless streak of disappointments top deal with.


But if it's so horrible why not cur your losses at the 50$ or so that you spent. walk away and give the money to the competion instead.

(Ok you wont get a refund, but then again the money some people spent on beer consumed in front of a computer screen whining about CoD will not be refunded either.)


Or better still:

put out your own, much better, product on the market and steal their source of income

That would show them

+1

[F19_Klunk]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

if it got broken in the mail then it's the postmans fault, is it impossible for you to wait just like the rest of us while they fix the broken product?

it was an analogy....

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by kendo65

The problem with this pov is that there really isn't space for much information on the box.

What with all the font options aval these days I don't see listing 'dynamic weather' on the box being an issue.. Had it been included

And lets not forget the advertisements posted at official 1C/UBI web site, where space is not an issue, take note there that in both cases we received everything that was advertised.

Originally Posted by kendo65

Most of the people on this forum will have been following closely the regular dev weekly updates over the preceding year+ which went into great detail about exactly the features that would be in the game (or were expected to be in the game)

The problem with this pov is that it is a loose loose situation for game makers..

1) If a game maker does an interview listing all the things their new graphics engine is capable of two years prior to the release of the game, and only manages to provide 8 of the 10 things they talked about come day of release, there is always going to be a vocal group who's unrealistic expectations expected 11 out of the 10 things mentioned, and thus feel let down or whose cheated.

2) If a game maker does and interview and does not say anything about what their new graphics engine is capable of two years prior to release of the game, there is always going to be a vocal group who will feel let down or whose yet cheated by not getting any details

So poor 1C.. Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't

Originally Posted by kendo65

It is just being really disingenuous for some people to insist that everything that was expected was included at release. I bet even Luthier would not attempt to take that position.

Agreed 100%

Just to be crystal, I think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was ever mentioned over the past six years of CoD development to make its way into the game, but I don't think it is disingenuous for people to insist that everything that was advertised on the box and official web site to be included at release. Problem is a lot of people can not distinguish between the two

Originally Posted by kendo65

I really don't know why certain folks here have such sensitivity to any implied criticism of the game that they are reduced to such distortions.

The worst part about these 'myths' is that they cloud the real issues with the game. There are plenty of problems with CoD for people to be disappointed with, tossing in myths for people to get more upset about does no one any good.

Originally Posted by kendo65

For the record, before Aces or someone else jumps in with the usual response, I'm not one of the compulsive knockers of this game (ask someone like Tree about my defense of the game in the run-up to release). I just can't have the woolly dishonesty and distortions of those who refuse to recognize any problems.

Agreed 100%

Those people who can not recognize the real problems from the myth problems are a big problem IMHO. They put so much att and effort into the myths that some of the real problems go unnoticed.. Than there is the way the 1C team must view these sorts of people.. I can only imagine that when a member from 1C reads a post that starts off complain about a 'myth' the 1C member probably stops reading the post right then and there.. Which means if that post did include some info on a real problem later in the post it will be missed by the 1C member who stop reading it at first site of the myth

Just got back from my latest vacation some mix up over what is truth and what is abusive apparently
The update isn't really an update though is it? It's more of a 'we are throwing all our resources into BOM and you beta testers will have to wait until we throw you another old bone' kinda thing. Thanks for this BS anyway.

[esmiol]

everybody knows that all feature predicted during the devellopement may not be in the release version (because of time and be implemented later or maybe cancelled because of ressources)

but in the case of IL2 Cliffs of dover... we don't even have what we had with the old il2 when the first episode is coming out.

IA order, different weather....stability....ability to get out of his plane on ground... miror....

the fact is that they had a lot and a lot of work to do...and the minimum is to put all r'essources on BOB before doing a sequel!

we are really not in the time of first il2 where we had new plane free and lot of free patch who add feature...before buyable addons.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by esmiol

everybody knows that all feature predicted during the devellopement may not be in the release version (because of time and be implemented later or maybe cancelled because of ressources)

Everybody knows?

So, let me see if I understand you correctly.. Your saying that all the people who are saying we were lied to and ripped off because of a missing feature that Oleg may have mentioned once or twice over the past 6+ years of CoD dev are lying?

Huh, becaues up to now I was just giving them the benifit of the doubt that they didn't know or didn't understand

Originally Posted by esmiol

but in the case of IL2 Cliffs of dover... we don't even have what we had with the old il2 when the first episode is coming out.

IA order, different weather....

Just to be clear, I am not saying there are no issues with CoD. All I am saying is we should focus our efforts on real issues not myths

Originally Posted by esmiol

stability....

Bug are to be expected with any new software.. That is to say it is unrealistic to expect no bugs

Originally Posted by esmiol

ability to get out of his plane on ground... miror....

We could bail out, but not get out and walk around. To me, not being able to bail out while sitting on the ground during taxi is a none issue

Originally Posted by esmiol

the fact is that they had a lot and a lot of work to do...and the minimum is to put all r'essources on BOB before doing a sequel!

Depends.. I for one am looking forward to the sequel, just as I looked forward to the half dozen or so IL-2 sequels that came out over the past 10 years.. Where the support for the previous version stopped and all efforts were put into the current version

Originally Posted by esmiol

we are really not in the time of first il2 where we had new plane free and lot of free patch who add feature...before buyable addons.

That is the problem with giving away stuff for free.. People start to expect you to give stuff away for free.. I think 1C should do as RoF does and charge $ for each new plane they provide.. Than that expectaion would go away

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Ctrl E

Reading these answers I would very much doubt the Moscow game will be compatible with CloD. Sounds like the have effectively dumped CloD and moved on to building an entirely new engine, which I doubt would work with CloDs messy code.

Sorry chaps.

what?

huffing glue much? where does it say any of what you assume?

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

Do I interpret the answers correctly that the advertized patch aiming to fix many gfx problems and and was due in a few weeks, now is .. cancelled? or at least postponed to this "sequel"?

not the impression i get to be honest, the patch will fix/rework the engine and improve frame rate and appearance (getting this not just from the update post but another by devs). then battle of moscow will be an add-on/sequel that will add features like dynamic weather.

Originally Posted by binky9

OK, but this was a land battle, although I admit,with air support.

My point was that CoD is a flight sim. I guess the sequel will be more of a stand-alone sim with tanks, etc., rather than an add-on to CoD. Not so much an IL-2 CoD/Battle of Moscow, as IL-2 Battle of Moscow. I was wondering what those tanks in the CoD previews were for.

Does the CoD "Battle of France" campaign include land battles, or is it just the air part of the battle?

binky9

what?

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

The goal is less whining, not more.

oh you optimist iamnotdavid

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Good Grief! I would not want to see that!

Based upon past addons and updates even if it is an merged game you will still have seperate maps!

[Edit] I changed my post as I miss-read the OP.

what, me eating a handful of bhut jolokias and crying like a little girl as my digestive system ignites, or flying off the edge of french and then onto steppes? nah, i meant like online dogfight servers, where a map ends and the next one loads you into a different theatre - think skies of valor or similar, where you can have an evening flying spitfire mkvb, zero a6m5 and then la5 (or emils, hellcats and antons) across the various map and plane sets.

Originally Posted by flyingblind

Thanks for the update. I guess the positive people will see it as positive and vice versa for the negative. Oh well.

This bit made me laugh:

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.

An excellent answer. Nearly wet myself.

i do like ilya's sense of humour

Originally Posted by xHeadbanDx

Yaaa for updates !!!! hope the squeal adds Americana and Russian planes.

lol whut?

Originally Posted by Chivas

Its highly unlikely that you will have to pay for the Battle for Moscow to get any new features like dynamic weather. It would probably be added as a patch to COD, although most people will probably buy Battle for Moscow and any new features will be added to COD, when they do a merged install. Personally I don't have that much interest in the Eastern front but will quite happily buy it to support further theaters, like the Med.

i find i have less interest for the battle of britain than other theatres, it's somewhat limited in scope, in that there isn't really the same mix of mission profiles as you get in, say, the pacific, africa or eastern theatres. or maybe i'm thinking like that because channel flying is the only thing on the menu, and you'd get tired of fillet steak if it was all you ate. having the variety of planesets and maps across an evenings gaming will be excellent.

[Frequent_Flyer]

The Battle of Moscow will be BOB without the channel. Essentially, the plane set will be early war trainers, with a timble full of fuel, flying short, limited in scope missions over bland uninspiring landscape, with inadequate ammunition. From my perspective this is dissapointing.However, it appears the sim in its present state may only be capable of the simple early war scanirios.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer

The Battle of Moscow will be BOB without the channel. Essentially, the plane set will be early war trainers, with a timble full of fuel, flying short, limited in scope missions over bland uninspiring landscape, with inadequate ammunition. From my perspective this is dissapointing.However, it appears the sim in its present state may only be capable of the simple early war scanirios.

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.

[Tavingon]

I hope any improvements are implimented for CLOD too..