|
|
#21
12-14-2012, 07:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My belief is that the game did not become a success not because of it massive requirements in expensive HW but, because a lot of bugs and important functionalities (AI, Radio control) were not ironed out as fast as possible. This is what I will always remember about CoD http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post3360767 "too far ahead" is a very delicate definition. "far head", too. Interestingly, you may want to notice the last comment about Oleg in the chat window on the first picture in the thread I posted above  ~S~ 
|
|
#22
12-14-2012, 08:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 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
|
|
#23
12-14-2012, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
The technology was there; the failure it's been because of the inability of the developers to use it correctly (lack of DX11, multithreating, 64bit ect... bugs with texture's compression rate, textures loaded directly from HDD, ect). As full time software developer I can say that it's not easy to use new technologies at their full potential: you need guys who have the correct know-how... my first applications with WPF (coming from "window forms") and ASP.Net (from php) were horrible. I think that Oleg didn't surrounded himself with the right pros. It's cruel, I know, but if you want to develop a master piece you have to work with real pros who actually know about new technologies... because of this a programmer has to learn the new technologies, or he will be surpassed by other guys.
__________________
 A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria. Last edited by 6S.Manu; 12-14-2012 at 09:56 AM.
|
|
#24
12-14-2012, 11:29 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Points taken sir.
 I've posted on our forum that I don't think BoS is going to be, well, I'll say very good here, as to not have Uther ban me. The RoF enigine is an older development and has severe limitations. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think I am.
__________________
 Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
|
|
#26
12-14-2012, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As I said in the past, I really don't like WW1 planes but I've bought many ROF plane packages: I hope others will do the same with BOS even if the engine is outdated. In that way we can support 777 to develop contents (planes and theatres) and above all a new generation of their engine. The only thing I ask to 777 is to be honest with the customer: they already wrote about their clear objectives on the first "developer diary"... it's enough for me.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#27
12-14-2012, 03:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Without post graduate work very few engineers will truly understand the differential equations used to APPROXIMATE flight dynamics, let alone be able to actually program them. Putting together a top notch flight sim is a black art in and of itself. Merging it all into an actual game is staggering. So, it is very difficult to find the, "right pros", when coding for a hard core PC based flight sim. Just my thoughts. --Outlaw.
|
|
#28
12-14-2012, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Anyway I'm talking about those engines who are directly linked to technologies. Of course the development of a physic engine from scrap required very smart people: probably guys who know to works with PhysiX can reach the target easier, but knowing how to develop a multithreading application is a little different from designing a complex physic engine, IMO. The same about a Dx10 graphic engine: an experienced Dx10 guy can work easily and with better results than a guy who only worked with Dx9 library or, at worst, OpenGL. This was my point, otherwise they would have used the newest technologies in CloD, but they didn't.
__________________
A whole generation of pilots learned to treasure the Spitfire for its delightful response to aerobatic manoeuvres and its handiness as a dogfighter. Iit is odd that they had continued to esteem these qualities over those of other fighters in spite of the fact that they were of only secondary importance tactically.Thus it is doubly ironic that the Spitfire’s reputation would habitually be established by reference to archaic, non-tactical criteria.
|
|
#29
12-14-2012, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I can't understand why someone that lives in Riverside, is constantly trolling forums when there is so much to do and see outside, just goes to show the type of pond-life you are.
|
|
#30
12-14-2012, 04:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I tip my hat to you 1000000000000000000+
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
