CLOD features discussion and speculation (moved from Friday June 15-2012 update)

FS~Valisk · #1 06-15-2012, 10:27 PM

Oh bollocks to this. All this misplaced faith and trust. xxxxxxxxxxxx. This place is deader than tanktops.

Bye now.

Insuber · #2 06-16-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MD_Marx

Hi - thanks for your thoughts on my suggestion. Yes, I realise MS have made some serious detours with various releases of Op Systems & Office, but that's a different kettle of fish. MG are involved in satisfying an initial contract of sale; MS merely were changing their product appearance in future releases after (to be fair) resolving all (as far as I can see) major issues with their supported products.

'Not really a problem for software houses'. Hmmm.......... I presume you
don't work in one?

Not wishing to preach, but as a software developer myself, I was trying to put in my 2p's worth from a point of knowledge. This software is highly complex and is made much more so by having to satisfy a bag load of requirements that might (and I emphasise 'might') be best handled in a separate version. It's just a thought - I'm sure in reality, the issues are more complex than any of us realise.

Marx

No I don't work in one I just work as unpaid beta tester for all of them ... LOL! Anyway your idea of separate versions is brilliant. But as you say we know just 1% of the real issues.

Cheers!

furzyk · #3 06-17-2012, 12:21 PM

Dont you think it would be better to use planes characteristics, flight model but environment and game structure (planes for money etc) from ROF ? Last time I have tried ROF and I couldnt belive when on 2560x1440 res i could play with at least medium settings and it looked beautifully... In that case everyone would be happy...

NLS61 · #4 06-17-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furzyk

Dont you think it would be better to use planes characteristics, flight model but environment and game structure (planes for money etc) from ROF ? Last time I have tried ROF and I couldnt belive when on 2560x1440 res i could play with at least medium settings and it looked beautifully... In that case everyone would be happy...

I woudnt lol

robtek · #5 06-17-2012, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furzyk

Dont you think it would be better to use planes characteristics, flight model but environment and game structure (planes for money etc) from ROF ? Last time I have tried ROF and I couldnt belive when on 2560x1440 res i could play with at least medium settings and it looked beautifully... In that case everyone would be happy...

If i would write my opinion to that i would be banned!!

ElAurens · #6 06-17-2012, 01:16 PM

Agree robtek.

It's easy to run a game engine that only allows for 40 or so ground objects on the entire map at any one time.

If you would set up a ground battle on a quarter of the scale it shoud look like for the Western Front, that game would be impossible to play on the highest end machine available.

Buster_Dee · #7 06-17-2012, 02:24 PM

RoF is sparsely populated; that wouldn't wash for WW2 environment.

BTW, I have an older E8500-based PC (building a new one now). I can play IL2 CoD on higher settings than I can RoF. No-man's land is treachurous on my FPS. How can dirt, some ditches, and explosions be so demanding.

Don't get me wrong. I like both sims and, for me, both capture their respective historical periods well (though CoD green doesn't look very English to me, a Yank).

#8 06-17-2012, 02:42 PM

RoF is a nice little sim and it looks also nice and runs smoothly. However I do feel that RoF is a well matured product with little further evolutions to the future possible.

And although the FM is not bad it is definitely not the pinacle of FMs and has its flaws. I for my part think that the FM is not the biggest strength of RoF. Where it excels however is DM imho.

Feathered_IV · #9 06-17-2012, 10:34 PM

Yeah, I noticed how the 'updates' are very carefully worded so as to reveal as little as possible.

Skoshi Tiger · #10 06-18-2012, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feathered_IV

Yeah, I noticed how the 'updates' are very carefully worded so as to reveal as little as possible.

I thought they were carefully worded because some community members seem to have difficulty understanding the meaning of basic words and phrases like 'Hope', "would like", 'some time after', "maybe".

They seem to mix them up with words like "promise" and "definately" and then take it as a personal insult if their unfounded expectations are not met.