![]() |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I always thought the problem with CLOD was that Oleg and team were bought by Putins Silicon valley dream, leaving 1C to pick up the pieces ?
Or have I got that totally wrong? wouldn't be the first time I showed off my mushroom style.. .
__________________
. ======================================== . .....--oOo-- --oOo-- HE-111 --oOo-- --oOo--..... . ======================================== -oOo- Intel i7-2600K (non-clocked) -oOo- GA-P67A -oOo- DF 85 full tower -oOo- 1000W corsair -oOo- 8 GB 1600Hz -oOo- 2 x GTX 580 1.5M (295.73) -oOo- 240 SSD -oOo- W7 64bit -oOo- PB2700 LED 2560 x 1440 6ms 60Hz -oOo- ======================================== |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
If the 1C management and development team does not acknowledge that COD was a failure (did not meet states objectives) with a loss of management controls (could not establish or meet schedules or be easily fixed resulting re-coding that also did not meet objectives), then I believe some of the same problems will occur on BOM.
The first step is to always admit the problem. The next step is to complete an analysis resulting in a plan with the processes, inspections, and testing to control and correct the development process. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Luthier admitted CLoD was a failure already. See here http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=465553&postcount=22
Quote:
Quote: 10. if you could do it all over again, would you? Yes, just differently. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Point taken, but management should be completely changed. It's obvious flight sims won't bring in big bucks, so why not just let someone who wants to make flight sims manage the project instead?
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ah, the question has been asked.
![]() |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
The team did a great job on this sim! the community really gave them a hard time with the release. We should have let them do the net code, and AI commands first as the priority. Then the other things would have followed too eventually. CTD was mostly user fault, like things running in the back ground etc. the game got hacked up unnecessarily.IMO
__________________
GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well Oleg not being here had something to do with what we have today. But good thing they have most of the original team though.
I think if Oleg was still here, the game might have been delayed considerably but working . . . the game would have had issues, but it would be been playable for high end systems . . . something like the original Il-2 release but rockier (because stuffs like hardware, software etc more complicated today). Oleg's importance was crucial. But that's not to say what the current dev crew is can't do and out do what Oleg set to do with this sequel. I think they can. ----- But given the current record, the devs are well on their way to making the sequel awesome. they already met most of the OP's objectives except management replacement . . . the devs know what's borked, and how to fix it, they are working on fixing it. -------- ALthought alot of peeps here would love the Jason n ROF crew taking over this sim, its not happening. Or the WOP thing. It'd be nice, but the game engine is based off the Il-2 1946, and old. Let's look at the venerable quake 3 engine I've seen lots of kick ass games using the quake 3 engine long after q3's release, but first person shooters had to move on after several years. Lots of developers were able to push that engine so it looked and felt like the next generation FPS engines but eventually its obsolescence caught up with it. There was limit to what it could do, and there was lot of new things (and new hardware) both the gaming industry and its fans were realizing . . . and it got alot harder to include the new features with an old engine, and alot easier to code up a new one with the new stuff and leave room for future improvements based on the knowledge of several generations of game engine development. ----- The new IL-2 needed a new engine and it would be shame just to redress the 1946 engine and iterations based off that older engine. We have to commend Oleg and now Luthier and his team for working to give a new engine. However since it was broken, lots wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but what we got here is proven it can work, if improvements and work keep at it. We have a broke engine but its repairable and that's what counts. ------------ I think if the current management is willing to change what didn't work with what is going to / did work, that's almost as getting replaced by more competent management crew. ----------- yeah and letting someone do it for the love . . . that would be awesome . . . yet with the devs and their publisher there were more dimensions . . . that well, lead to what we have here. it'd be better for that person who wants to do it for love to get key people around him (key meaning that can make a company and grow it and have mad skills) and run with it. The dev and publishing co's have to be on the same boat or in the next case . . . crew in the same boat . . . oh and there's the financials . . . I was just interviewed by an HR lady a few weeks back . . . who knew the guy that started a legendary first person shooter series. It was an impromptu lunch interview and he happened to notice her and he strolled over to say hi. He had to max out his credit cards, take out a bunch of loans, and get tons of small business / DIY venture capital loans. He talked to friends and trusted friends of friends, to assemble a team that could mesh well and have skill set to win. He said he knew he was going for financial ruin, but he felt the FPS genre needed something apart from d00m, duke nuke-em and jedi. IIRC he later sold the gaming rights of the series he started, and it involved normandy, black ops and zombies . . . but he did make an awesome series. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Its about the overall gameplay experience at the end of it all... and Oleg spent too much time trying to simulate individual rivets and the like instead of balancing visual/FM/DM aspects with gameplay. War Thunder is a pretty complete package as far as gameplay goes and thats while its still at Beta. So it will only get better as they refine the damage and flight models and add more content. The unfortunate thing with Clod was that the game engine in its various guises didnt deliver so they have been chasing their tail since 2009. From a DM and FM perspective Im sure it is still more detailed than War Thunder will ever be, but at the expense of visuals, gameplay, stability and performance. Luthier needs to readdress the balance of gameplay/visuals/performance vs FM/DM for the sequel. He knows this and has commented as such to my question about balancing gameplay/visuals with realism. Its a game after all and not a static model where we count each individual rivet and wing spar. We want to experience a bigger world and re-live the 1940's from a pilots perspective with nice graphics and compelling game play. If I had to sacrifice some elements in order to get a better overall experience here's how id rate importance and my evaluation of CLODs attainment out of 5. (peoples opinions will vary but im sure you'll see what im getting at) #1 Immersion - 2 (what immersion?) #2 Flight Model -3.5 (good but not up to 1946 standards overall) #3 Gameplay - 2.5 (very average) #4 Graphical representation of aircraft models - 5 (miles ahead of 1946 and anything else) #5 Graphical representation of game world (water, land, trees, buildings, objects) - 3 (dont see it as any better than 1946 and this was one of the biggest failings of the graphics engine) #6 Damage Model - was 5 but has gone backwards to 3.5 in the latest patches at least visually anyway Equal #6 AI - 3 from a flying perspective and a 1 from a AI commands perspective. (im an online player mostly and if I was more into offline this would be ranked #3) So as you can see there is a lot to balance and thats just from my own personal perspective. Oleg focussed too much on the plane models and their graphical rendering and damage model virtually at the expense of everything else. Nice models with individual rivets and spars that can be damaged dont alone create an immersive WW2 simulation. Last edited by FS~Phat; 10-11-2012 at 09:17 AM. |
![]() |
|
|