The Crystal Ball 2

Bewolf said:

>>Ppl read what they want to read, obviously.<<

Not always. Sure, some people can be selective.

>>Nobody ever denied the faults of CloD, Robtek is spot on here.<<

Yes they have, in extremis. Including the devs themselves for a long time, by side-stepping the obvious. Only when the outcry reached sufficient size did they do a u-turn. denying the faults can take many forms, from ignoring what you dont want to hear, to attacking posters who make valid critcism. It happens a lot.

>>Repeating them ad nauseum, however, won't make them a) go away, b) improve moods and game expirience, c) give us a/the patch any faster.<<

The 'mood' is determined by many things. Lack of straight-talking and fawning doesn't help. The repetition is boundless on both sides.

>>These points have been made to death and it speaks volumes about the actual whiners that they have to be repeated yet again. <<

So, then, your post, is what exactly? Whining about whining about whining about whining...ad nauseam.

>>Your argument is not improved by dissing other's writing style. <<

I'm not making a fancier point. The wiriting style, as elsewhere in life, betrays the post and the poster. It tends to make a rather nasty stain.

An 'argument' is not the aim. The aim is to point-out the nastiness-masquerading-as-moral-high-ground-patience-of-a-saint rhetoric of some fairly nasty and dowdy posters. Add that to a fawning acceptance of the situation - and worse, a tacit approval of the sequel - and you have unreality gone mad.

What's more, such nasty posters tend to go for posters who are not as adept with the language (perhaps English isn't their first language). I can't stand them, any of them.

*That* sets the mood. About time they had some of 'dem apples' back.

Ben

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Peaveywolf

Can someone explain what "IL-2 in the real engine" means please. Thx

The development has been rebuilding the game engine, atleast the graphic portion, which was causing the main performance issues. The screenshots of the IL-2 for BOM were probably taken on one of the builds of the performance/graphics patch. All the sequels will be built on the same game engine, any fixes too the graphics, AI, COMMANDS, FM, DM, Weather, will apply to all sequels including COD. The "real engine" probably refers to one of the recent game engine performance/graphics rewrites/builds.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Bewolf said:

>>Ppl read what they want to read, obviously.<<

Not always. Sure, some people can be selective.

>>Nobody ever denied the faults of CloD, Robtek is spot on here.<<

Yes they have, in extremis. Including the devs themselves for a long time, by side-stepping the obvious. Only when the outcry reached sufficient size did they do a u-turn. denying the faults can take many forms, from ignoring what you dont want to hear, to attacking posters who make valid critcism. It happens a lot.

>>Repeating them ad nauseum, however, won't make them a) go away, b) improve moods and game expirience, c) give us a/the patch any faster.<<

The 'mood' is determined by many things. Lack of straight-talking and fawning doesn't help. The repetition is boundless on both sides.

>>These points have been made to death and it speaks volumes about the actual whiners that they have to be repeated yet again. <<

So, then, your post, is what exactly? Whining about whining about whining about whining...ad nauseam.

>>Your argument is not improved by dissing other's writing style. <<

I'm not making a fancier point. The wiriting style, as elsewhere in life, betrays the post and the poster. It tends to make a rather nasty stain.

An 'argument' is not the aim. The aim is to point-out the nastiness-masquerading-as-moral-high-ground-patience-of-a-saint rhetoric of some fairly nasty and dowdy posters. Add that to a fawning acceptance of the situation - and worse, a tacit approval of the sequel - and you have unreality gone mad.

What's more, such nasty posters tend to go for posters who are not as adept with the language (perhaps English isn't their first language). I can't stand them, any of them.

*That* sets the mood. About time they had some of 'dem apples' back.

Ben

Well, how do you reply to a lot of hot air and a distinct lack of substance?
Right, you don't. Have a good week end

Bewolf said:

>>Well, how do you reply to a lot of hot air and a distinct lack of substance?<<

I dont know, but I have feeling I'm going to have to get some practise in.

You didn't set up those skittles very well....

And what's the weekend got to do with it?

Ben

[mxmadman]

Originally Posted by Chivas

The development has been rebuilding the game engine, atleast the graphic portion, which was causing the main performance issues. The screenshots of the IL-2 for BOM were probably taken on one of the builds of the performance/graphics patch. All the sequels will be built on the same game engine, any fixes too the graphics, AI, COMMANDS, FM, DM, Weather, will apply to all sequels including COD. The "real engine" probably refers to one of the recent game engine performance/graphics rewrites/builds.

What's wrong with you Chivas, don't you know this thread isn't for talking about the game!?

At any rate, when I peer into my Crystal Ball, I see one problem. They keep referring to BoM as a sequel, which to me means they're going to charge full game price.

If bom includes only new models and a new map, this is in fact not a sequel but an expansion. Charging $50 for models and a map is exactly what Call of Duty does, and I don't like the sound of that. Has there been any previous facts given on this by 1C?

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by mxmadman

What's wrong with you Chivas, don't you know this thread isn't for talking about the game!?

At any rate, when I peer into my Crystal Ball, I see one problem. They keep referring to BoM as a sequel, which to me means they're going to charge full game price.

If bom includes only new models and a new map, this is in fact not a sequel but an expansion. Charging $50 for models and a map is exactly what Call of Duty does, and I don't like the sound of that. Has there been any previous facts given on this by 1C?

I don't really care what the developers call them. The developers have long planned to add theaters the same way as the past IL-2 series. Each theater can be standalone or merged with the previous theaters. So that any new improvements and feature options can be applied to all theaters when merged. Its a sound business plan. For your 50 dollars you'll get new maps, aircraft, buildings, objects, and new features. The game engine was designed to be relatively future proof, so they could keep adding features and theaters for atleast ten years, as they did in the first series. Some would say the game engine is old already, I would suggest the game engine isn't even finished yet.

[mxmadman]

Originally Posted by Chivas

I don't really care what the developers call them. The developers have long planned to add theaters the same way as the past IL-2 series. Each theater can be standalone or merged with the previous theaters. So that any new improvements and feature options can be applied to all theaters when merged. Its a sound business plan. For your 50 dollars you'll get new maps, aircraft, buildings, objects, and new features. The game engine was designed to be relatively future proof, so they could keep adding features and theaters for atleast ten years, as they did in the first series. Some would say the game engine is old already, I would suggest the game engine isn't even finished yet.

Hmm.. well if they do intend to charge $50, we can pretty much not expect a SDK until they've moved on to another product, as models and maps are the easiest thing for modders to make. I will, personally, not be paying $50 as I don't support the Call of Duty business model. If they add major changes to the engine or something that takes more than just extra art and FM to match I would be willing to reconsider.

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by mxmadman

Hmm.. well if they do intend to charge $50, we can pretty much not expect a SDK until they've moved on to another product, as models and maps are the easiest thing for modders to make. I will, personally, not be paying $50 as I don't support the Call of Duty business model. If they add major changes to the engine or something that takes more than just extra art and FM to match I would be willing to reconsider.

Look at the development history of IL2. There is all you need to know about their business model.

[robtek]

Paying 50$ for a sequel / add-on / expansion / stand alone / whatever is really dirt cheap regarding what one is getting for that money.

Everybody has seen now the quality of the models and the landscape, compare that to any other Flight-sim and then compare the pricing!

[Luftwaffepilot]

Originally Posted by robtek

Paying 50$ for a sequel / add-on / expansion / stand alone / whatever is really dirt cheap regarding what one is getting for that money.

Everybody has seen now the quality of the models and the landscape, compare that to any other Flight-sim and then compare the pricing!

Not to mention the Bugs, the CTDs, the poor performance...