Friday Update, February 17, 2012

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Probably won't happen.

Most Tank/armor/infantry game players are used to maps that are postage stamp sized by comparison to flight sim sized maps.

It would take hours at the speed of a WW2 tank to get from the "front" to an opposing airfield, and that's with no interdiction by enemy aircraft. Also remember that the Wirbelwind for Clod will have a realistic rate of fire and accuracy. It won't be the death star it is in IL2.

There is/was a mod for IL2 that allowed you to drive a Jeep or Kubelwagen. Ever tried it? Start at a base on the Kuban and see how long it takes to get from one end to the other.

You are quiet right!
We'll need to capture some Me321's to get our Bren Gun Carriers onto the Blue runways then? That's be sort of the right timeline for the Battle of Moscow expansion?

[Verhängnis]

Hmm, that's exactly what we want if they are going to introduce vehicles - an Me-323.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by furbs

Blackdog i remember about 9 months ago asking you when do you think CLOD would be mostly bug free and the missing features added, you told me you expect it to take about a year.

Its almost a year now...and il ask you again, when do you now expect CLOD to be mostly bug free and the missing features added?

Just like i said, about a year. The operative word here being "about" which implies a +/- margin. That could translate to anywhere between 8 and 18 months, or 10 and 14 months, or 6 and 13 months.

The thing is, when i'm making predictions and guesses about things i have no inside knowledge of, i won't pretend i'm actually knowing more than i do and i won't make a fool of myself by saying silly stuff like "it will be definitely fixed, by whatever definition of "fixed" any forum member prefers to abide by, at XYZ exact date". I'll just use that +/- margin to indicate i'm equally unsure myself and simply making an educated guess.

Now if people want to take that as a hard and fast commitment on my part, someone who has no direct way to influence the outcome, the problem is on their reasoning and not mine.

Overall, i'd say that things are going just like i expected them to go thus far: about a year for the game to be playable (playable means playable, it doesn't mean 100 FPS maxed out on mid-level hardware) on an acceptable range of PCs, then moving on to gameplay-affecting bugs (what they are doing now) while the part of the team that does non-optimization work sets their sights on future content to ensure a follow-up stream of cash flow down the line.

As you can see, i don't have any illusions about the state of the sim. I just had more realistic expectations about it because of how difficult it is to do what they tried to do. Maybe it's a language barrier thing and that's why many people didn't get it, i don't know, but personally i more or less got what they wanted to do pretty early on and that's why i expected the troubles, it's a complicated undertaking overall.

I'm not one for blind faith either, whichever way it might swing, so i won't make bold claims about eventual success or failure but i'm glad they tried to push some of the limits we had in the previous series. If it doesn't come to fruition we'll get a slightly better series, if it does succeed we'll get a much better one. It's fine by me either way.

They could have simply made "IL-2 remake: better graphics" which would be much simpler and probably would have much less problems, i'd buy it and fly it as well but it would be just that, a remake. I didn't want that, i wanted new stuff and i got new stuff so i'm satisfied. I also got new problems (just like i got them when i first tried out IL2 back in 2001), but that goes with the territory of innovation.

As long as they can remain in business they'll keep improving it and that's all i care about, in the meantime my life doesn't revolve around the lack of simulated 100 octane merlins. I'm in my early 30s, i have enough time left to see where the series is going and if for some reason i didn't, i would have more pressing matters to worry about than the direction of a flight sim series.

What i'm trying to say is, this is supposed to be a hobby, something we do for fun and escapism from real life. If people aren't prepared to spend some time making it work and enjoying the learning process, then it just defeats the whole purpose.

It's like building model kits and going "gah, it has no aerials! outrage!" or "the landing gear struts don't have wiring!". Well, take a lighter, burn the spare plastic framing, stretch it and make yourself an aerial, or take small rubber tubes, paint them and glue them to those landing gear struts and you've got wiring.

I remember when i last made a model kit, it was a 1/48 scale grumman wildcat, i wanted it to have a belt and harness in the cockpit and the kit didn't have one. What i did was borrow a book with some good photos of the cockpit to see the shape and layout of the belts, cut a little strip of cloth mere millimeters wide, cut an even smaller piece of aluminum foil, grab a pair of tweezers and a magnifying glass and spend two hours of an evening wrapping that aluminum foil around that piece of cloth, then glued the whole thing on the cockpit seat.

My wildcat cockpit had a seat belt, complete with its locking pin, i had a good feeling of accomplishment and i didn't have to e-mail the folks in Tamiya and complain about the lack of seatbelts on an otherwise excellent kit

I don't know if it's because we've been spoiled, because our lifes get faster, or a combination of both, but it seems like an ever growing amount of people in all kinds of hobbies have lost the basic joy of it all: if it doesn't work the way i want it to i'll get my hands dirty and tinker with it, then share my results with the other fellows instead of just sulking about it.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Osprey

This is what happens when you lose half a wing.

Duxford Flying Legends (Sunday show) 2011, the one that didn't crash lost the wing

this one is an example of making it home with extreme wing damage, not all significant wing surface damage results in an instant and complete loss of control



note: afaik no carrier landing was attempted however, they ditched in the water once they reached the carrier taskforce

I'm sure the devs have long since stopped reading this thread, but what are the drivable vehicles going to add to the game? Are you planning on adding other multi-player modes besides "dogfight"? Are you planning on some manner of Battlefield 1942 style play? If this will be usable in online play, will someone driving a tank or a truck count towards the number of people able to fly aircraft? Assuming a game is limited to 64 people online. If one person is on a tank, does that mean that there can now only be 63 people flying online?

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Just like i said, about a year. The operative word here being "about" which implies a +/- margin. That could translate to anywhere between 8 and 18 months, or 10 and 14 months, or 6 and 13 months.

The thing is, when i'm making predictions and guesses about things i have no inside knowledge of, i won't pretend i'm actually knowing more than i do and i won't make a fool of myself by saying silly stuff like "it will be definitely fixed, by whatever definition of "fixed" any forum member prefers to abide by, at XYZ exact date". I'll just use that +/- margin to indicate i'm equally unsure myself and simply making an educated guess.

Now if people want to take that as a hard and fast commitment on my part, someone who has no direct way to influence the outcome, the problem is on their reasoning and not mine.

Overall, i'd say that things are going just like i expected them to go thus far: about a year for the game to be playable (playable means playable, it doesn't mean 100 FPS maxed out on mid-level hardware) on an acceptable range of PCs, then moving on to gameplay-affecting bugs (what they are doing now) while the part of the team that does non-optimization work sets their sights on future content to ensure a follow-up stream of cash flow down the line.

As you can see, i don't have any illusions about the state of the sim. I just had more realistic expectations about it because of how difficult it is to do what they tried to do. Maybe it's a language barrier thing and that's why many people didn't get it, i don't know, but personally i more or less got what they wanted to do pretty early on and that's why i expected the troubles, it's a complicated undertaking overall.

I'm not one for blind faith either, whichever way it might swing, so i won't make bold claims about eventual success or failure but i'm glad they tried to push some of the limits we had in the previous series. If it doesn't come to fruition we'll get a slightly better series, if it does succeed we'll get a much better one. It's fine by me either way.

They could have simply made "IL-2 remake: better graphics" which would be much simpler and probably would have much less problems, i'd buy it and fly it as well but it would be just that, a remake. I didn't want that, i wanted new stuff and i got new stuff so i'm satisfied. I also got new problems (just like i got them when i first tried out IL2 back in 2001), but that goes with the territory of innovation.

As long as they can remain in business they'll keep improving it and that's all i care about, in the meantime my life doesn't revolve around the lack of simulated 100 octane merlins. I'm in my early 30s, i have enough time left to see where the series is going and if for some reason i didn't, i would have more pressing matters to worry about than the direction of a flight sim series.

What i'm trying to say is, this is supposed to be a hobby, something we do for fun and escapism from real life. If people aren't prepared to spend some time making it work and enjoying the learning process, then it just defeats the whole purpose.

It's like building model kits and going "gah, it has no aerials! outrage!" or "the landing gear struts don't have wiring!". Well, take a lighter, burn the spare plastic framing, stretch it and make yourself an aerial, or take small rubber tubes, paint them and glue them to those landing gear struts and you've got wiring.

I remember when i last made a model kit, it was a 1/48 scale grumman wildcat, i wanted it to have a belt and harness in the cockpit and the kit didn't have one. What i did was borrow a book with some good photos of the cockpit to see the shape and layout of the belts, cut a little strip of cloth mere millimeters wide, cut an even smaller piece of aluminum foil, grab a pair of tweezers and a magnifying glass and spend two hours of an evening wrapping that aluminum foil around that piece of cloth, then glued the whole thing on the cockpit seat.

My wildcat cockpit had a seat belt, complete with its locking pin, i had a good feeling of accomplishment and i didn't have to e-mail the folks in Tamiya and complain about the lack of seatbelts on an otherwise excellent kit

I don't know if it's because we've been spoiled, because our lifes get faster, or a combination of both, but it seems like an ever growing amount of people in all kinds of hobbies have lost the basic joy of it all: if it doesn't work the way i want it to i'll get my hands dirty and tinker with it, then share my results with the other fellows instead of just sulking about it.

+ 100%
Very well said, Cheers.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

I'm sure the devs have long since stopped reading this thread, but what are the drivable vehicles going to add to the game? Are you planning on adding other multi-player modes besides "dogfight"? Are you planning on some manner of Battlefield 1942 style play? If this will be usable in online play, will someone driving a tank or a truck count towards the number of people able to fly aircraft? Assuming a game is limited to 64 people online. If one person is on a tank, does that mean that there can now only be 63 people flying online?

Seriously? It looks like these features aren't even at beta stage yet.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Hmm,

I think they've well been modeled long ago, like many modules with this sim. It's just now they are finally able to put them together.

Reading between the lines long ago about the detail level of the ground units, I definitely saw this coming. Notice these videos are almost 2 years old. It's no wonder they showed hatches opening etc! It's because people will be in there!

Good stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvPlp...ure=plpp_video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-WKU...ure=plpp_video

[150GCT_Veltro]

Originally Posted by Insuber

I always hated country bashers telling silly jokes about the citizens of a whole nation. Are you happy now?

The problem is not about the offensive posts, (who cares about id1ots?). Problem is this kinde of update about Cliffs of Dover and the incredible level of "fanboyism" on this forum.

We still don't have the Royal Navy, for ex., but people is happy for the cars........pathetic. Would be better a video about an improved (debugged) CEM for ex.. This is still a flight sim about The Battle of Britain.

The show must go on.

Considering this, please give us (italians) the Balilla, so we could have a trip by car.

[Force10]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

What i'm trying to say is, this is supposed to be a hobby, something we do for fun and escapism from real life. If people aren't prepared to spend some time making it work and enjoying the learning process, then it just defeats the whole purpose.

The problem is, a lot of us have been waiting to escape from real life with this title and can't because it's still not functioning properly 8 months later. Something has to be at a certain level of functionality to be able to "enjoy the learning process" so it's just been a long waiting game which isn't enjoyable for most.

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

I remember when i last made a model kit, it was a 1/48 scale grumman wildcat, i wanted it to have a belt and harness in the cockpit and the kit didn't have one. What i did was borrow a book with some good photos of the cockpit to see the shape and layout of the belts, cut a little strip of cloth mere millimeters wide, cut an even smaller piece of aluminum foil, grab a pair of tweezers and a magnifying glass and spend two hours of an evening wrapping that aluminum foil around that piece of cloth, then glued the whole thing on the cockpit seat.

Inspirational story, unfortunately it doesn't have much bearing on whats going on here. Last time I checked, 1C didn't release the source code for anyone to attempt to fix the AI,FM,DM, etc. themselves, so the analagy is somewhat rediculous. If your model kit advertised it had a state of the art belt and harness in the box and you didn't get one, you would have been on the phone expecting the issue to be resolved.