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
  #1741  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:23 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 ACE-OF-ACES View Post
Hardly.. see following where I prove it


omg...

So let me get this straight..

Your saying no sequal to CoD has been produced yet?

DUH!

But when 1C does produce a sequal, in this case the Russian Front, it will surly add more substance (planes, maps, features, updates, etc)

That is the point your missing, that you thought I missed

But keep digging!

I am here with a rope ready to pull you back into reality!
No, no, no!

I am talking about substance to the Battle of Britain! What part don't you understand?

Of course BoM is the sequel and will add more substance to the series.

But it will add nothing to the Battle of Britain.

Do I have to repeat myself again? Stop making yourself look stupid. Cliffs of Dover is the Battle of Britain, Battle of Moscow is the Russian Front.

The point I, and others, have been making is that the BoB aspect is being abandoned. No more campaigns, improved voice-packs or anything to improve it.
__________________
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
  #1742  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:27 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 Force10 View Post
He will continue to bash anyone that would like to play the sim they paid for and get more than an alpha for their money.
Pure gold.. The guy who has resorted to calling me names more than once in this thread alone says I am bashing people! Too funny! That or he thinks just because I don't agree with his glass half full view of the world I am bashing him as aposed to disagreeing with him
__________________
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
  #1743  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:30 PM
Plt Off JRB Meaker's Avatar
Plt Off JRB Meaker Plt Off JRB Meaker is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Windsor,UK
Posts: 864
Default

...........Calm down dear
__________________
http://i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/fastted/82%20Squadron%20Banner.jpg

Alienware Aurora|Win 7 64-bit Home Premium|IC i7-920 Processor (Quad-Core)|14GB DDR3 RAM|1 TB SATA 7200rpm Hard Drive|GIGABYTE GeForce GTX 770 2GB WINDFORCE 3 X fan|Thrustmaster Warthog|Saitek Pro Combat rudder pedals,throttle quadrant and Cessna trim wheel|TrackIR4|Sense of humour,I find it comes in handy!
Reply With Quote
  #1744  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:33 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 it will add nothing to the Battle of Britain.
You don't know that!

The Brit's sold Spits to the USSR so chances are a new version of the Spit might be added in the Russian addon (figers crossed it is a 100 oct version) that could be used in a BoB mission

But one thing is for sure each and every sequal adds more to the BASELINE of the game engine..

So if not this sequal than the next may add something that can be used in a BoB campain!

For example, IL-2 Pacific Fighters added the PACIFIC! But at the same time it added Britt versions of the F4, F6 and F4u that could be used to simulate the usage of such planes in Brit carrier euro missions

What is so hard to understand about this?
__________________
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
  #1745  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:42 PM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

Good points there El Aurens. I suppose MG always tended to go for the technical engineering aspects of the flight-sim experience over the immersive gameplay elements even in the original il-2. Because of that I did have my doubts as to the depth of play that would be available with COD before release. I had hope though especially with talk of a dynamic campaign - until about two weeks before release. One difference with original il-2 is that the community filled the gap with countless single missions and immersive offline campaigns. Nothing on that scale as yet for COD.

Philip, I'd advise you to stop trying to convince Aces on any of this. You've expressed your honest opinion here. Anyone reading the forum can take it on board and make their own judgement of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking Aces is interested in any kind of real engagement or honest exchange of views on this. If you answer one of his points he will only substitute it with something else in the next post...and for the majority of open-minded people on the forum his views are irrelevant.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #1746  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:47 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

So we have a Spitfire 1B missing from the game. Were these used in the Russian front? Not that I'm aware of.

I can't think of any other spits that have been omitted, nor aircraft in CloD which could be used in Russia which will benefit my experience. A Hampden, a flyable Defiant etc would be gold. But not for the foreseeable future.

My point is that CloD itself is not exactly finished from an offline perspective. I want to the game to expand in as many avenues as possible, but BoM would most likely sell a lot better if CloD was finished first and had the credibility to show that the next game would be just as good. The case at hand is that we're hoping BoM won't be just as bad.

Note that in all my previous posts I have said time and time again that it's good the sim expands in this way. As you suggest it adds a lot to the previous titles.
But currently there is no proof that anything useful will be added to CloD to benefit it. Hence why it has been abandoned. If the next expansion was in the same theatre, it would allow them to add directly to it.

Now that's why the SDK could be so useful. Third parties might emerge to do the job many of us wish the team had done before.

Phew that took a long time to get across (and I've reworded this post about ten times now).

@Kendo. didn't see your post mate, but you're exactly right.
__________________
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
  #1747  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:51 PM
von Brühl von Brühl is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 215
Default

But how many rabbits will you have to kill to turn into tokens to upgrade to the new epic Spitfires?
__________________
i7-920 @ 4.1Ghz
Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R
12 GB DDR3 1600 RAM
GTX 560Ti with 2GB (latest beta driver)
22" monitor @ 1680x1050
TrackIR 5
Saitek X52
Saitek pedals
Win7 64-bit Ultimate

"Ignorance speaks loudly, so as to be heard; but its volume proves reason to doubt every word."~Wes Fessler
Reply With Quote
  #1748  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:16 PM
Chivas Chivas is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
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.
The developers basic strategy is almost the same as the original series, except they planned to build tools for modders, and a more robust game engine to use in a number of different ventures. Still the basic strategy was to build a game engine and release a number of new theaters and aircraft based on that game engine. With patches inbetween to fix bugs and maybe add some new content.

This hasn't changed, except for one major setback. The sims game engine wasn't finished and working. This has thrown a major spanner in the works. If the game engine had been working everyone would have been happy and the next sequel would be just around the corner. IF the sim survives this setback you will see a succession of theaters, aircraft, tools for modders, and maybe even an MMO.

The one thing you are right about is the loss of respect by many in the forums, but that can easily be regain IF and When the game engine is fixed. Personally I'd rather they lost a little respect with a chance to regain it, than the cancellation of the sim.
__________________
Intel core I7 950 @ 3.8
Asus PT6 Motherboard
6 gigs OCZ DDR3 1600
Asus GTX580 Direct CU II
60gigSSD with only Windows7 64bit, Hotas Peripherals, and COD running on it
500gig HD Dual Boot
Samsung 32"LG 120hz
MSFF2 Joystick
Cougar Throttle
Saitek Pro Rudder pedals
Voice Activation Controls
Track IR 5 ProClip
Reply With Quote
  #1749  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:51 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

The strategy is the same, but the situation is different. (As you rightly say, Chivas).
__________________
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
  #1750  
Old 06-06-2012, 02:43 AM
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
The strategy is the same,
Is what I said

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.ed View Post
but the situation is different.
To which I say DUH
__________________
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
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 09:16 PM.


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