Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Pilot's Lounge

Pilot's Lounge Members meetup

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1701  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:33 AM
BlackSix BlackSix is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
Posts: 533
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fg28_kodiak View Post
hm, what does kfor mean?
Blacksix? Or any other of our russian friends?
sdk

Last edited by BlackSix; 06-05-2012 at 07:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #1702  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:41 AM
FG28_Kodiak FG28_Kodiak is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Swabia->Bavaria->Germany
Posts: 884
Default

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #1703  
Old 06-05-2012, 12:16 PM
klem's Avatar
klem klem is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65 View Post
To be honest Klem, I think Philip is saying pretty much the same thing:

2) We do not plan to develop new content for CloD [rewritten for clarity]

is effectively the same as

"CloD is being abandoned, only to be improved collaterally with what ever changes happen to BoM"

People may disagree with the use of the word 'abandoned', but it is a fact that in game terms COD will be left in a pretty half-assed state. Although there will be general improvements to the engine with BOM that will also benefit COD, that will not be sufficient to turn COD into the full-fledged Battle of Britain simulation that many of us had been so excited about for years.

Without further dedicated content COD is destined to remain an empty shell as a Battle of Britain simulation. Unfortunately, over the last six months, I have been slowly coming to accept that the game that I was so excited about for so long is really not going to be realised. There is still the habit of checking in for latest news and word on the patch, but it doesn't mean that much to me any more because the underlying vision and potential as a Battle Of Britain sim/game/recreation will not be reached.

I continue to hope that some time in the future the community may finish the job that the devs couldn't (or wouldn't). Until that happens I don't see myself playing it much.

The series as a whole still has potential to be really special and I hope with a new theatre that they can finally get it together. I still get excited about the prospect of dynamic weather, etc, etc; but as an immersive, exciting recreation of a pilot's experience of the Battle of Britain COD is a dead duck.

And I do feel very let down and disappointed about that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My post written before I read Philip's latest. That we're both expressing nearly identical feelings says something I think. Something else - neither of us are your much caricatured, heard about the game last week and thought I'd give it a go, 2-week, rent-a-whine merchants either. Both of us were hugely excited by this game for a long time before it's release.
Well there's a big gap between
We do not plan to develop new content for CloD
and
CloD is being abandoned, only to be improved collaterally with what ever changes happen to BoM"

That gap is that the current (not new) content of CoD which isn't working is to be fixed which includes both CoD specific and core areas and I expect that to include both on-line and off-line play, FMB, etc..

Bottom line for CoD is we won't know if current content fixes have been abandoned until they say they have stopped working on it.

However I did say in another (MMO) post that CoD (and BoM) can never be the battle we all wanted it to be. As with IL-2 '46, sheer scale prevents it which is what fed into the discussions about a MMO. So yes, that is where CoD will fail to be a representation of the BoB. If it's scope that you and philip are saying has been abandoned, you are right in a way but it was never promised. Oleg said from early dev days that it wouldn't support many more players than IL-2 '46. That was a huge disappointment for me at the time but I've known that for a few years. We've know for a long time that SoW would only be like an updated polished version of IL-2 '46 with the same expansion release philosophy. We all put our own interpretation on what the CoD representation of the BoB would be and we have all been disappointed in that sense. I don't recall Oleg saying anything magical about gameplay, all we saw was neat(?) grass, detailed vehicles and better planes/graphics etc..

Fact is, if we want a good historical representation of the BoB we probably have to go somewhere else for it. But it may not match the FMs DMs and Graphics of CoD (once they're fixed )

We're about to take part in a SOWC campaign and its a source of frustration to me that we will only be able to accommodate about 90 players which means just one decently supported raid without the wider tactical concerns of multiple raids, control and resource management etc.. But for some tme now we've known that is how it would be.
__________________
klem
56 Squadron RAF "Firebirds"
http://firebirds.2ndtaf.org.uk/



ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 4GHz / 6Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / EVGA GTX570 GPU 1.28Gb superclocked / Crucial 128Gb SSD SATA III 6Gb/s, 355Mb-215Mb Read-Write / 850W PSU
Windows 7 64 bit Home Premium / Samsung 22" 226BW @ 1680 x 1050 / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro & Rudders
Reply With Quote
  #1704  
Old 06-05-2012, 01:54 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

Klem, my point is that CloD is, after the next patch, only to be developed collaterally which I perceive (as does Kendo) as abandonment. Unless the next patch provides the immersion, missions, environment to really simulate the BoB it's still a relatively empty shell in my books. Fun can be had but it doesn't sustain me. As some have pointed out, Il-2 is similar but the mods have done wonders for it.

AoA mentions that the original Il-2 was similar. Perhaps, but then I remember being vividly entertained. Why? Because there was nothing better: it was the best on the market bar none. One would have expected such a safe development strategy to remain, but for the new game to be a lot better than that released more than a decade ago. Certainly it's a huge technological leap forward (CloD's like an ice-berg: there's a lot under the surface which is untapped) but apart from being Forgotton-Battles, set in the BoB with brass-knobs on is it anything more?

I agree completely with the rest of your post, Klem. My point really is that after the next patch the sim itself is being directly abandoned and perhaps later being handed over to the community. This negates Chivas's point that the SDK will allow expansion. I'm not doubting that at all. I'm simply stating that the development team (unless they produced a sub team) will not be expanding the Battle of Britain further directly. And the indirect changes will not add the meat to sustain an offliner like me. Even if a dynamic campaign system is introduced, a community member will have to fill it out because the team won't be working on CloD directly.

This is why I hope BoM is a success. If the game expands, I can see a development team going back and working on CloD. The BoB is in a lot of people's interests and it would be foolish to not see it become the numero-uno sim representing this period.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up!

Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9
Reply With Quote
  #1705  
Old 06-05-2012, 02:59 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.ed View Post
AoA mentions that the original Il-2 was similar. Perhaps
No perhaps about it..

Luither recently said CoD is going to follow the same development path as IL-2 did..

Where each sequel will include the previous version and at the same time add new features and content (maps, planes, etc).

That is the 1C 'way' of providing updates.. via sequels that include the previous version of the game and add more to it.

The 'other way' of providing updates is the RoF way.. where you pay for each and every update (planes, maps) separately.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #1706  
Old 06-05-2012, 04:52 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

I completely agree. But note that there is a lot of change in 10 years. 10 years ago CloD would have been a complete revelation, just as the original Il-2 was. It offered, as I said, everything over the competition. But in today's world CloD is hard to compare: once you've experienced the awesome graphics, it's relatively empty for an offline user like myself. And that's not because I am against the sim (heck I tried to help the team as much as possible to make it excellent by providing Oleg with research) so it is a shame for me to say this.

I think the business model is simple and effective. But it needs the original game to be well received first. The difference is that although the original was difficult to run on high settings, on the lowest it still offered a lot over the likes of CFS, Fighter Squadron, EAW et al. With CloD there are a lot of similar sims for being to go back to.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up!

Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9
Reply With Quote
  #1707  
Old 06-05-2012, 06:05 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.ed View Post
But note that there is a lot of change in 10 years. 10 years ago CloD would have been a complete revelation, just as the original Il-2 was.
But Luither confirmed thier aproach with sequals has not changed.. Which was the topic at hand

If you want to talk about how software tools, video cards, PC, etc has changed over the past 10 years than you may want to start another thread on the topic? Just a thought.
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on.
Reply With Quote
  #1708  
Old 06-05-2012, 06:43 PM
Force10 Force10 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 371
Default

Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.
Reply With Quote
  #1709  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:03 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Force10 View Post
Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. Their overall goal seems similar (although the announcement of an MMO throws this into doubt) but the state of the games is completely different.
Indeed, the Russian conflict was relatively new territory for people and thus it's harder to tell if the campaigns are realistic enough. There were also no competitors in this theatre of operations. CloD is different as it has a host of sims as potential competition (even modded Il-2 can take away potential customers). Thus for them to move onto the next one, it would have needed to have cemented a good deal of respect which it hasn't, sadly.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up!

Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9
Reply With Quote
  #1710  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:20 PM
Force10 Force10 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 371
Default

In his "knee jerk reaction" defend at all costs mentality, sometimes Ace just twists the truth into something that doesn't make sense. I really think he should change his avatar to something like this:

Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.