sdk

Thanks :grin:

Well there's a big gap between
We do not plan to develop new content for CloD
and
CloD is being abandoned, only to be improved collaterally with what ever changes happen to BoM"

That gap is that the current (not new) content of CoD which isn't working is to be fixed which includes both CoD specific and core areas and I expect that to include both on-line and off-line play, FMB, etc..

Bottom line for CoD is we won't know if current content fixes have been abandoned until they say they have stopped working on it.

However I did say in another (MMO) post that CoD (and BoM) can never be the battle we all wanted it to be. As with IL-2 '46, sheer scale prevents it which is what fed into the discussions about a MMO. So yes, that is where CoD will fail to be a representation of the BoB. If it's scope that you and philip are saying has been abandoned, you are right in a way but it was never promised. Oleg said from early dev days that it wouldn't support many more players than IL-2 '46. That was a huge disappointment for me at the time but I've known that for a few years. We've know for a long time that SoW would only be like an updated polished version of IL-2 '46 with the same expansion release philosophy. We all put our own interpretation on what the CoD representation of the BoB would be and we have all been disappointed in that sense. I don't recall Oleg saying anything magical about gameplay, all we saw was neat(?) grass, detailed vehicles and better planes/graphics etc..

Fact is, if we want a good historical representation of the BoB we probably have to go somewhere else for it. But it may not match the FMs DMs and Graphics of CoD (once they're fixed :lol: )

We're about to take part in a SOWC campaign and its a source of frustration to me that we will only be able to accommodate about 90 players which means just one decently supported raid without the wider tactical concerns of multiple raids, control and resource management etc.. But for some tme now we've known that is how it would be.

Klem, my point is that CloD is, after the next patch, only to be developed collaterally which I perceive (as does Kendo) as abandonment. Unless the next patch provides the immersion, missions, environment to really simulate the BoB it's still a relatively empty shell in my books. Fun can be had but it doesn't sustain me. As some have pointed out, Il-2 is similar but the mods have done wonders for it.

AoA mentions that the original Il-2 was similar. Perhaps, but then I remember being vividly entertained. Why? Because there was nothing better: it was the best on the market bar none. One would have expected such a safe development strategy to remain, but for the new game to be a lot better than that released more than a decade ago. Certainly it's a huge technological leap forward (CloD's like an ice-berg: there's a lot under the surface which is untapped) but apart from being Forgotton-Battles, set in the BoB with brass-knobs on is it anything more?

I agree completely with the rest of your post, Klem. My point really is that after the next patch the sim itself is being directly abandoned and perhaps later being handed over to the community. This negates Chivas's point that the SDK will allow expansion. I'm not doubting that at all. I'm simply stating that the development team (unless they produced a sub team) will not be expanding the Battle of Britain further directly. And the indirect changes will not add the meat to sustain an offliner like me. Even if a dynamic campaign system is introduced, a community member will have to fill it out because the team won't be working on CloD directly.

This is why I hope BoM is a success. If the game expands, I can see a development team going back and working on CloD. The BoB is in a lot of people's interests and it would be foolish to not see it become the numero-uno sim representing this period.

No perhaps about it..

Luither recently said CoD is going to follow the same development path as IL-2 did..

Where each sequel will include the previous version and at the same time add new features and content (maps, planes, etc).

That is the 1C 'way' of providing updates.. via sequels that include the previous version of the game and add more to it.

The 'other way' of providing updates is the RoF way.. where you pay for each and every update (planes, maps) separately.

I completely agree. But note that there is a lot of change in 10 years. 10 years ago CloD would have been a complete revelation, just as the original Il-2 was. It offered, as I said, everything over the competition. But in today's world CloD is hard to compare: once you've experienced the awesome graphics, it's relatively empty for an offline user like myself. And that's not because I am against the sim (heck I tried to help the team as much as possible to make it excellent by providing Oleg with research) so it is a shame for me to say this.

I think the business model is simple and effective. But it needs the original game to be well received first. The difference is that although the original was difficult to run on high settings, on the lowest it still offered a lot over the likes of CFS, Fighter Squadron, EAW et al. With CloD there are a lot of similar sims for being to go back to.

But Luither confirmed thier aproach with sequals has not changed.. Which was the topic at hand

If you want to talk about how software tools, video cards, PC, etc has changed over the past 10 years than you may want to start another thread on the topic? Just a thought.

Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. Their overall goal seems similar (although the announcement of an MMO throws this into doubt) but the state of the games is completely different.
Indeed, the Russian conflict was relatively new territory for people and thus it's harder to tell if the campaigns are realistic enough. There were also no competitors in this theatre of operations. CloD is different as it has a host of sims as potential competition (even modded Il-2 can take away potential customers). Thus for them to move onto the next one, it would have needed to have cemented a good deal of respect which it hasn't, sadly.

In his "knee jerk reaction" defend at all costs mentality, sometimes Ace just twists the truth into something that doesn't make sense. I really think he should change his avatar to something like this:

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7516/avatar1ys.jpg

It is easy to spot the person that does not have an intellectual argument to address the topic at hand..

Just look for the guy that has to resort to attacking the messenger..

Why?

Because they know they can not attack the message! ;)

Ah I see where you are confused..

Note I did not say the development strategies are the same as IL-2..

It was Luither than said the the development strategies are the same as IL-2, with regards to how they are going to handel sequals

Hope that helps!

Well then I guess they missed the part where to have a successful sequel, you shouldn't have a first title that is a joke and universally thought of as being short on support, features, and is basically the worst release in a decade. Someone is definitely confused...that's for sure.

Well I know calling it a joke is the thing to do for you and yours..

Which is fine, your welcome to your opinion

All in all I am just glad I was able to help you understand what it was Luither said wrt sequals

S!

The main difference is that Forgotten Battles and all the other titles were essentially complete and had achieved their (more limited) goals before the series moved forward.

The Battle of Britain was such a well-defined historical engagement with a distinctive atmosphere and varying strategic/tactical goals that any successful simulation needed to provide the capacity to recreate both individual engagements and give some feel of the overall campaign by including a career mode. The potential for exciting gameplay was HUGE.

There is good evidence that the developers goals for the game were to provide something along these lines. Luthier had a detailed (several hundred pages if I recall) design document for the planned dynamic campaign.

The enforced (?) early release and subsequent difficulties obviously killed any possibility of this being completed to schedule. We have instead got a threadbare, dryly technical simulation of the aircraft that took part in the battle flying over a mediocre (in my opinion) map of the area of operations. There is next to nothing in the way of gameplay, missions are incredibly few in number and limited in scope, the much-needed dynamic campaign is unfinished, historical atmosphere is negligible. The game fails totally in recreating any feeling of what it would have been like to take part in the Battle of Britain.

Compared to the original vision and any reasonable estimation of what a decent BOB sim should be able to do COD is woefully incomplete. And here is the main point - the fact that it is no longer the developer's intention to supply those missing elements does mean that the original vision and intention for COD has certainly been abandoned. We have the planes and a map. We don't have a decent BOB sim and we aren't going to get one.

Backdated game engine tweaks from BOM won't change that fact.

So what part of 1C saying they are going to finish CoD before the sequal are you still struggling with?

Did you even read my post?

If so you certainly didn't engage with any of the main points.

If you want to have a discussion about it then at least deal with the points raised instead of playing your usual games.

Lol im starting to think Ace of Aces is actually working for UbI and has been given the mission to ignore anything anything bad about the game and only claim the opposite... Some people just dont see the forrest for all the trees... Game is broken= fact. There is lack of support or intrest by the developers to fix it as fast as possible=fact.

Not only read it but went as far as to quote it..

Hope that helps!

I've stated my opinion already.

You're entitled to your point of view Aces.

Nothing more to say.

Promise?

AoA, they say they will finish with it. It's not a finished game by an offliners standards like mine and Kendo's certainly.

There's a big difference. Before you and Force started arguing, my last post corroborated what Kendo just wrote to show that the situation between Il-2 and CloD is quite different.

Here's the original GameSpot review: http://uk.gamespot.com/il-2-sturmovi...eview-2829773/

Now look at CloD's: http://uk.gamespot.com/il-2-sturmovi...eview-6308918/

The score has more than halved. So a sim that scores so low is worthy to proceed with? It's improved since then, but only so that it can run better and look better. The content that's been added is extremely minimal.

This, really, is our point. Unless this sim morphs into the perfect BoB sim with the next patch, the team's position with BoM won't be as tangible as it could have been. I really want BoM to do well. I think the SDK can solve a lot of issues, but you're fooling yourself if you believe that this sim is the finished product.

AoA, this discussion isn't about understanding Luthier's perception on the sequels. Everyone understands that. It's interpreting the situation and seeing how it really compares to the example Luthier uses, of Il-2, to show that actually the similarities are only clear at first glance, but fall apart under careful analysis.

Don't let Ace get to you folks. He is well practiced in the art of duochebaggery, and he ignores facts in a conversation and just chops out a quote that he can twist some sort of "I'm right" spin on. We all know COD is more or less a punchline rather than a way of life as it is for him. If he upsets you, just ignore his ludicrous comments, we all know he is grasping at straws while he and the sim he has been defending circles the drain with each anouncement.

Again, if you want to change the topic at hand.. Be my guest

But my answer to you delt specifcally with the 'aproach' that 1C took with IL-2 with regards to sequals.. And how Luither said they plan on using the same 'aproach' with CoD

Where each sequal includes the previouse version of the game..

As in all the planes, maps, features, etc.

And the sequal adds to it (planes, maps, features, etc)

Hope that helps!

It is easy to spot the person that does not have an intellectual argument to address the topic at hand..

Just look for the guy that has to resort to attacking the messenger..

Why?

Because he knows he can not attack the message! ;)

Wow! this thread has derailed so much they should rename it to "Rotten stuff from the dumpster".

MMO may change the old add-on approach. But engine remains mostly the same probably. Hope for SDK.

He keeps repeating himself....

Only becase you keep doing it

Well I must admit to having a narrower view as I am only interested in on-line play. There I expect the devs to complete the aircraft (FMs, controls etc), sort out and complete the FMB and hopefully the rest will come from those terrific guys running the servers and building the mission maps. My regret is that we will never see large scale missions.

I understand what you mean about off-line play. I guess you have a point there if it is so bad. The truth is I played a couple of rounds of the career and got bored because for me the AI are just that, artificial, and I can't take them seriously no matter how good they are. Knowing I'm up against other real living pilots is what gives me my fix.

Aye, but the sequel to Il-2 extended the front, whereas BoM is going into new territory.

This thread has been derailed, but I was under the impression we were discussing the future as a whole.

Actually IL-2 sequels broke into new territory too over it's 10+ years..

In that new 'things' were added that did not exist in the original IL-2..

So even that analogy of yours does not apply

But keep digging I am sure you will find something!

But in doing so you will miss the whole point!

That being Luither said 1C's method of providing new features is to re-package the game into a new version (sequel) that includes the previous version of the game while adding new content (planes, maps, features, mission making tools, graphics card support, etc)

As in that is how they did it with IL-2 and that is how they plan on doing it with CoD

Where as other flight sims do it in different ways.. Some like warbirds charge monthly fees, and flight sims like RoF charge you for individual addons (planes, maps, scarf, etc)

At least that was the 'plan' at the time Luiter said it!

Should a large asteroid hit the earth next week I am sure the plan will have to change..

At which point you can rest assured that there will be a hand full of whiners floating in space complaining that the 1C plan for CoD never transpired as originally intended! ;)

You miss the point :rolleyes:

Forgotten Battles added to the Russian Front and gave it so much more substance. It improved a game that had already received glowing feedback.

This isn't happening with CloD. Moscow is not Britain or France. The point I am making is that for the forseeable future, the Battle of Britain has been abandoned by the dev team. If they were expanding the game to include the BoF and the later Rhubarbs and Circus's, I would agree with everything you are posting in an attempt to prove my posts wrong.

The point I am making is that on relative terms, the future of CloD is only following the same lines as Il-2, but it's not being done identically. If it was identical the next expansion would be in the same theatre of operations, and the team would ensure that theatre actually had some meat.

So keep weasling your way around. You might actually post something that can weigh up to my facts.

I'm not sure how they can "re-package the game into a new version" when they weren't able to properly "package" the original game into a functioning version. I would think all the talk of sequels and MMO's would have been better announcements if they had waited until they fixed the first game. As it stands right now, not very many are confident they have the chops to fix it and they have done nothing but used stall tactics instead of actually fixing much.

BTW: Nice pic Ace! If you need help learning how to post it properly without the mini thumbnail....let me know.

Hardly.. see following where I prove it

omg...

So let me get this straight..

Your saying no sequal to CoD has been produced yet?

DUH!

But when 1C does produce a sequal, in this case the Russian Front, it will surly add more substance (planes, maps, features, updates, etc)

That is the point your missing, that you thought I missed

But keep digging!

I am here with a rope ready to pull you back into reality!

QTF as in understatement of the year

I hesitate to wade into this, but I do feel the need to.

Our British friends (and others to be sure, myself included) are bitterly disappointed with CloD, and it is understandable. The Battle of Britain is their touchstone campaign of the entire war, or even of all time really. The RAF is an iconic service to this day because of their actions in the summer of 1940. It is a "sacred" thing and as such the hopes for it's portrayal in the new sim were at an amazingly high level.

Curiously, those of us on this side of the Atlantic had a similar experience with the expectations for the release of Pacific Fighters. The campaign in the Pacific is as "sacred" to us as the BoB is to our British cousins. And we were as let down by it's release as those fretting over CloD are today.

Amazing similarities abound...

Lack of knowledge of the events.

Lack of aircraft types.

Very poor campaigns for off line play.

And in the case of PF, bizarrely chosen maps, and glaring omissions in maps and other areas of content that left gaping holes in gameplay both offline and on.

I won't even get inot the NG issue.

At least CloD has the right map.

So... here we are.

Most of us are not happy to one degree or another.

I suspect that Luthier and the team are not very happy either.

We all have had our pet kicked in the gut by the suits at 1C, who chose to run Oleg off, and release the sim too early, and to add Steam and it's complications at the last minute.

Will beating each other up in the forum fix any of this?

No.

So why keep hammering away at each other like any of us are at fault?

Why?

Typical Ace....when he's stumped by a question or faced with facts he can't answer he goes to his trademark "chop". At least everybody can recognize the shear stupidity of his responses.

Everyone understands this except Ace. He has stated in the past that he has got more than his money's worth...so apparently, he's ready to move on. He will continue to bash anyone that would like to play the sim they paid for and get more than an alpha for their money. Ace doesn't understand the value of a finished product, and he is basically the last of the vocal supporters.

No, no, no!

I am talking about substance to the Battle of Britain! What part don't you understand?

Of course BoM is the sequel and will add more substance to the series.

But it will add nothing to the Battle of Britain.

Do I have to repeat myself again? Stop making yourself look stupid. Cliffs of Dover is the Battle of Britain, Battle of Moscow is the Russian Front.

The point I, and others, have been making is that the BoB aspect is being abandoned. No more campaigns, improved voice-packs or anything to improve it.

Pure gold.. The guy who has resorted to calling me names more than once in this thread alone says I am bashing people! Too funny! That or he thinks just because I don't agree with his glass half full view of the world I am bashing him as aposed to disagreeing with him

...........Calm down dear:rolleyes:

You don't know that!

The Brit's sold Spits to the USSR so chances are a new version of the Spit might be added in the Russian addon (figers crossed it is a 100 oct version) that could be used in a BoB mission

But one thing is for sure each and every sequal adds more to the BASELINE of the game engine..

So if not this sequal than the next may add something that can be used in a BoB campain!

For example, IL-2 Pacific Fighters added the PACIFIC! But at the same time it added Britt versions of the F4, F6 and F4u that could be used to simulate the usage of such planes in Brit carrier euro missions

What is so hard to understand about this?

Good points there El Aurens. I suppose MG always tended to go for the technical engineering aspects of the flight-sim experience over the immersive gameplay elements even in the original il-2. Because of that I did have my doubts as to the depth of play that would be available with COD before release. I had hope though especially with talk of a dynamic campaign - until about two weeks before release. One difference with original il-2 is that the community filled the gap with countless single missions and immersive offline campaigns. Nothing on that scale as yet for COD.

Philip, I'd advise you to stop trying to convince Aces on any of this. You've expressed your honest opinion here. Anyone reading the forum can take it on board and make their own judgement of it. Don't make the mistake of thinking Aces is interested in any kind of real engagement or honest exchange of views on this. If you answer one of his points he will only substitute it with something else in the next post...and for the majority of open-minded people on the forum his views are irrelevant.

So we have a Spitfire 1B missing from the game. Were these used in the Russian front? Not that I'm aware of.

I can't think of any other spits that have been omitted, nor aircraft in CloD which could be used in Russia which will benefit my experience. A Hampden, a flyable Defiant etc would be gold. But not for the foreseeable future.

My point is that CloD itself is not exactly finished from an offline perspective. I want to the game to expand in as many avenues as possible, but BoM would most likely sell a lot better if CloD was finished first and had the credibility to show that the next game would be just as good. The case at hand is that we're hoping BoM won't be just as bad.

Note that in all my previous posts I have said time and time again that it's good the sim expands in this way. As you suggest it adds a lot to the previous titles.
But currently there is no proof that anything useful will be added to CloD to benefit it. Hence why it has been abandoned. If the next expansion was in the same theatre, it would allow them to add directly to it.

Now that's why the SDK could be so useful. Third parties might emerge to do the job many of us wish the team had done before.

Phew that took a long time to get across (and I've reworded this post about ten times now).

@Kendo. didn't see your post mate, but you're exactly right.

But how many rabbits will you have to kill to turn into tokens to upgrade to the new epic Spitfires?

The developers basic strategy is almost the same as the original series, except they planned to build tools for modders, and a more robust game engine to use in a number of different ventures. Still the basic strategy was to build a game engine and release a number of new theaters and aircraft based on that game engine. With patches inbetween to fix bugs and maybe add some new content.

This hasn't changed, except for one major setback. The sims game engine wasn't finished and working. This has thrown a major spanner in the works. If the game engine had been working everyone would have been happy and the next sequel would be just around the corner. IF the sim survives this setback you will see a succession of theaters, aircraft, tools for modders, and maybe even an MMO.

The one thing you are right about is the loss of respect by many in the forums, but that can easily be regain IF and When the game engine is fixed. Personally I'd rather they lost a little respect with a chance to regain it, than the cancellation of the sim.

The strategy is the same, but the situation is different. (As you rightly say, Chivas).

Is what I said

To which I say DUH

I think the one most important point the "abandoned" crowd is missing is that there is no money to build this nice shiny additional content for the BoB!!!!

Where should it come from? From the abundant sales, enforced by great reviews, whining boards and the sorry state of the game in the beginning?

Which sane business man would throw away money in a closed project stage that wont gain any additional income.

The only way to get additional content for the BoB would be a full priced expansion pack, maybe with a map from northeast england to norway, The Bf110 D and some British bombers and ships to recreate the unsuccessful British invasion in Norway.

Just a idea, maybe it should of come with the release after 5+ years of development or the 15 months since, just MHO of course.

They ran out of money (7 mill for development) because the sim wasn't and still isn't good enough, it got panned on release by the critics and quite rightly, so it didn't sell enough units.
The fault lies in the almost 10 years of terrible badly managed development time, where the money was chucked in the bin and then the 2 years of rushed catch up time to get the half finished botched poor excuse for a BOB sim release out the door that we see now.

so, where is the most anticipated revelation about the MMO paytoplay, paytowin, paypal, bankaccount, suckmyblood ??

Regurgitation, as yammering, doesn't help anybody, and second guessing business and management decisions without deeper knowledge of interna is plain frivolous propaganda.
imho.

Just explaining it to you rob, you was the one telling us they ran out of money.

Probably all true. The situation we've ended up in was not the plan that's for sure.

I'm still aware of the potential of this sim. I've ripped into it in these posts over the aspects that are bad but I'm aware of the current good points - quality of the cockpits, damage modelling, etc and I'm aware of the breadth of detail and vision behind the whole concept.

When (if?) they finally get this together (hopefully with BOM) with full dynamic weather and everything working as it should the results could be fantastic.

It's the awareness of that and the fact that the early screw-ups and problems have mangled my expectation of COD being the ultimate Battle of Britain sim that makes the disappointment worse. The mess-ups have ruined the possibilities for COD and turned it into little more than an extended prototype and testing ground for development of the engine. 5 years into the future if this sim matures and we have a really great Russian Front, Mediterranean and maybe even the Pacific the fact that the COD/ Battle of Britain instalment will (without further work) be the 'ugly duckling' of the series is difficult for me to accept. It's become such a squandered opportunity to make a great game about a battle that many of us (Brits especially) had real interest and passion for.

If the community don't remedy the problems my only hope is that when the devs come to revisit the western front to bring us into 41-43 they could provide map improvements and extra features that would flesh it all out, but it's a big disappointment to be asked to wait that long.

I only know that the first rule of any kind of business is customer care. Clod coul be a good negative example.
For sure i would be happy to flight the new sim, but the time is going on and the simulator is not following. The lies and the failure in the communication strategy of the team are not helping at all.

Yawn. I said it as well, but you have to try to be so condescending all the time you can't see the forest for the trees.

Indeed, when I said that, by going into new territory at this stage, the situation with regards to their strategy is different than before, you said:

"blah blah blah... because they went into new territory with the likes of Pacific fighters it is the same...So even that analogy of yours does not apply"

So it's nice to see we've finally convinced you to change your mind.

Wow, maybe we should bookmark this date? AoA changes his mind! :grin:

I think the most anticipated feature would be "suckmyblood and ill be happy taking it through the backdoor on a regular monthly basis". But i wouldnt call it a revelation. :)

exactly that is it. all old announcements MIGHT BE obsolete! We just have to wait the official words about this MMO stuff. business planes change sometimes...........

i don't think there was 5 years development. 1.5 years? for the CLOD engine , I think they scraped the original SOW engine.

2/10/2010 "were STARTING a whole game engine from SCRATCH" Ilya

plus what there playing looks alot like the preview from the CD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xoz1Kb2wkPE

I think that's generally correct. Something was happening during the last year or two before release and what we have is definitely not the product of 7 years development unless it was wandering woefully in the wilderness. Also, in that video, most if not all was taken from IL-2 1946. It has always given me the feeling that either the guts were ripped out of it for some reason (<enter political/finacial/skulduggery reason here> or it was started again from scratch around late 2009/2010.

Actually, the game Luthier is playing there is the current one. This was right before they started installing the current landscape features, Luthier himself saying that parts of the current landscape could actually be seen in the video. They weren't happy to have to do it as the game was no where near ready for testing (as the choppy FPS shows).

The main problem with COD and the Battle of Britain type scenarios is the unfinished, unstable game engine and features. The game engine and most features will have to be fixed if the developer expects to sell the next Sequel and develop an MMO. IF and When the engine and features are fixed COD will be updated with patches and a combined install with the next sequel. These fixes should allow the community to make far more realistic campaigns. My only concern is their implementation of radar and home defence type vectors. That said I know they aren't that far off as the sim has always run fairly well with large amounts of aircraft on the highly optimized system that I use to only run COD.

As far as waiting for the Sequel for fixes, this may not be the case, as they would likely use COD and the community to test many of these fixes and features, before releasing the next sequel.

I know that sometimes during 2009-2010 they fired/lost a few key programers, including their main programer that worked on Il-2 and designed a big chunk of the new game engine. It looks like the new guys aren't able to fill that void. I think they are still trying to recover from that loss.

Of course I may be wrong, but that's the only thing that would explain the dificulty they have fixing some bugs in the engine. The guys trying to fix it, are not the ones that build it.

The development did have some employee problems and one of them was the water coder, but it was never said how critical those people who left or were fired were. I know when I was testing Gaijins WOP many aspects of the sim appeared very similiar the original IL-2.
(other than the FM which I know they borrowed from the original IL-2) and I wondered if some of SOW people left to work with Gaijin.

I wonder if any of that internal disharmony still exists within the current team. Luthier said just prior to release that he took the pilot animations guy off his job and put him on something else at the last moment. He said that the person in question "hates his guts for it" and acknowledged that it was a big mistake to do so. One also wonders how Luthier is seen by his staff. Do the home grown Russian team view him as an American and an outsider? Must be tough to hold it all together.

true

yeah like Oleg . . . the guy who designed the original successor's engine and the original game . . .

But I think Ilya and the current crew keep at it, they will have a game worthy of Il-2 1946.


The time its taking them? Even to diagnose which part of the code the problems are having takes a long time to separate, especially if the code is complicated /and or different parts are co-dependent on each other (which Il-2 ClOD's code fits), even if you have the original coders.

Heck, and I'm not counting that could be architectural / design issue, and then that really messes up because once that is changed, everything else has to be changed also . . .

Agree except that what you are seeing in the video is the Alpha I believe of the original SOW engine, if you look at the the cockpit at 2:10 of the 87 and then look at this video from 2006 of the upcoming storm ot war they are the same. Also there is something blurred out at the top of the screen between 2:10 and 2:20...i dont think it is a FPS indicator. i dont think it could be 46...way to choppy...unless he has a real POS PC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgIGWCcsO78




Phil i think that is SOW, if you look at the original video from 2006 it is not smooth...meaning unoptimised code or the PC could not handle it or both, as for the landscape look at the second video..i know the quality sucks but you will see the landscapes look the same as in time index 1:48-53 of the original video I posted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3sf0eiQ--o



Jaws I am %100 sure they did not start writing SOW in .NET in 2005/6, whom ever the programmers were that they lost in 2009/10 must have taken the engine with them because at the same time ilya stated they were writing a NEW engine from scratch...so they didn't try to fix the bugs in the old engine because for what ever reason they did not have access to it.. hence the reason for using .NET

No, I am 100% right. That video was posted by Luthier when the weekly CloD updates were in full swing. The cockpits will look similar because they stayed the same for CloD! Trust me, I can remember that update well.

They hadn't yet moved to speed-tree, or they were trying to make it work. The landscape, as I said, was being worked on.

It wasn't renamed to CloD until November 2010.

yes, the first 2 planes to be desplayed in 2006 (?) were the spit mk1, and the he111.

unfortonatly those 2 pits didnt got updated to 2011 standards, and have such a bad quality compared to its mates...

yekes.

Here's the post by Luthier to support my previous post:
(from this topic: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...hlight=terrain )

those were not the only planes in the works 2006 :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_WLRDY42QU

phill just because they say it is does not mean it is... :( look at this update from 1/22/2010 http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...cussion+Thread

look at the second pic of the br20, and then look at this from 2006 time index 2:17- there calling this NEW and UPDATE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_WLRDY42QU

Here's the thing, the first version of SoW was Open GL. They then made a new engine which was Direct X, but kept a lot of the objects.

So what I linked to is the second version, but obviously not a lot has been done on the objects.
Indeed, that video of the first SoW version shows a landscape that, to me, has much better colours and tree placements than what we currently have.

This may not be exactly the right place for this question,and I'll understand if it is moved.It is really a hypothetical one anyway...Il-2 didn't really start to take off ( so to speak) until its code was cracked & modders had a field day ( & still are to some degree...)Could the same thing happen here ,if as mentioned all new developement to CloD is to be stopped( with the exception of well known performance & visibility issues?I'm guessing alot of still unshown ,unfinished bits are/were well along the way ( Do-17 cockpit, Bf-108 flyable,He-59 floatplane to name just three.) In looking at the work if Modders at SAS & AAS it looks as if there is a vast resource that could be a real benefit in not only fixing this sim but finally making it live up to its promise as a real historical re-do of the Battle of Britain ( France , Poland etc.) I know there are already small mods going on & mentioned at this site, but I don't dare try them as the next official patch could simply wipe them out ( at least that's my understanding.So is this possible , can modders go into this & fix it? The devlopers seem to be taking their time( and perhaps spending it on the Battle of Moscow or whatever title it will be...)or is the sim just too complex for 3rd parties to tackle?
I like many others enjoy the sim( even with indifferent FPs) but at times what it doesn't do with the features it has & don't work drive me a little crazy!

I find this blind faith in "the modders" highly amusing. As it is there were a handful of people (literally) who could and did produce models for 1946 which adhered to the given standards and didn't need any or much fixing. The new 3D models are a few more notches above what we had in 1946 and given the amount of internal things (structural parts, systems etc) I doubt there is a single 3D modeller who can produce an aircraft or cockpit within a year, if the standards of MG can be achieved by private people at all (due to the question of obtaining sources, spare time vs modelling etc).

Aside this ... in my opinion the game needs other things than more aircraft. There is virtually no offline gameplay (my main gripe), FMs a mess ATM and the issues with the engine itself prevent people from investing more time into making their own solutions.

It is my impression that modding for CoD is a very much more complex endeavour as in 1946.

As most of the modders didn't meet the quality standards of 1946 this would even more so apply for CoD.

The freelance, enthusiastic, unpaid and professional modder would be a very, very rare species.

The chances for professional 3rd party contend are much higher, imo.

Really not blind faith in modders...honestly...and not really a cry for more planes either or cockpits for those we have now & were sort of promised in the years of developement & screenshots ( for all I know they may come with B of Moscow , but I'm not holding my breath...)Part of my question was addressing the many things /features that should work now & don't ( the list is long:RT,AI,FM.Arming,Off & on line issues,FPS,Arming...well you know the list goes on & on..) My question was/is are these problems which seem to have confounded the developers impossible for third parties to help on?
In Il-2 we didn't see the developer step up to may of the issues that were eventually solved by third party people & not the just the addition of aircraft : things like FM ( remember the 190 whinners & they had a point,( 6dof ,aircraft sound,fire & smoke effects,better interiors & modeling ( I'm thinking the 109 in particular,but others as well.) There were tons of stuff Oleg or Luthier said were good enuff & would not go back & address.What they did do is produce several versions (Pacific Fighters,1946,) that were not fully devloped in gameplay,missions etc ( in my opinion,) but that gave third parties a foundation in which to build & expand upon.
I think the last two or three posts have given me my answer:No...not possible ...not now?!

I think producing complicated models will be a lot trickier.

But don't think this will put off potential modders. If they can still create external models, which lack the internal details which may not ever be seen, but still look awesome to the everyday user, people will still happily use them.

And I probably would too. Just like I downloaded the first modded Spit mark 1 when it came out. At the time it was better than nothing.

The "better than nothing"-approach misfired for 1c/MG big time.

The regular paying customer wants it all and the glacing directly from the beginning.

Not quite, a sim that's not still in alpha after 15 months after release would be a start.

The developer never did say exactly when they decided too go with DX instead of OpenGL, but they did say they changed the terrain to incorporate SpeedTree, because the original trees stopped the fps cold. Some people have said the original BOB was going to use the original engine, but thats not the case. BOB was always going to be built on a new game engine as the old engine wasn't capable of doing the things they wanted to accomplish. We never did find out for years if the new engine was going to be OpenGL or DX.

No, the version shown in the Mystic-Puma video was using Open-GL. This was scrapped and a new engine built (as this was using Il-2 engine)

We definitely won't be seeing modders build the complex new aircraft models very quickly if at all. I wouldn't mind seeing high quality aircraft like the Lancaster as payware from the developer or 3rd parties. Although I would prefer the developer did it or got paid a decent licencing fee from the 3rd party payware.

I don't think so, that was rumour started by the forums, not something the developers ever said.

I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I think you are confused.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...pen#post113731

The first version (in the DVD video which accompanied 1946) was made on an Open-GL engine, based on Il-2. They then scrapped this and started from fresh.

Oleg himself said:

We initially wanted to make Battle of Britain on the Il-2 engine. However that would be the last thing we could do with it. And then what? The engine was beginning to show its age by that time, despite many revolutionary features which Il-2 brought to the genre in 2001, and which many developers have tried to replicate since. By 2005 we’ve finally realized that we had to build a new engine. First only one person worked on it, then two, all while continuing to work on Il-2 as well. We’ve really switched over to BoB only after all work on Il-2 was completed, i.e. in 2007. So BoB’s only been in development for 2 years now.

But don't let this fool you into thinking the change had happened by 2005. It was most likely 2007 when they scrapped the first build, which was the video we saw on the Il-2 DVD (hence the similarities between the two).


I just had to add this as well (completely unrelated) from the same 2009 interview with Oleg:

Q: Oleg, we have some intel that the next add-on after BoB will be the Mediterranean. Can you let us know how soon that’ll be released? And another even more important question: how soon after BoB can we expect the Eastern Front again, and what are you planning for it?

A: Your intel is nothing but a rumor. Even I myself don’t know whether it’ll be Africa or something else. Everything depends on the success of BoB on the market. Of course, no one has done a comprehensive MTO sim, save for a few unfinished or unsuccessful attempts. Eastern Front or the Pacific will perhaps be the most difficult to develop out of all options. So you should probably not expect to fly Soviet planes immediately after BoB.

:grin:


Also this:

Q: Let’s go back to BoB maps once again. This is a very exciting topic. How will they be different from Il-2 maps?

A: First of all, they will be more detailed. This means all sorts of small details you will notice in flight, with terrain, buildings, roads, etc. Not exactly on topic of maps, but we’ll also have moving grass. Secondly, we will have dynamic weather. This is actually on topic of maps. Even though the weather is handled by a separate weather module, it’ll be tied into the gameplay maps and affected by topography. Thirdly, we’ll have more detailed coastlines. We’ll now have cliffs, not just flat painted textures, but with real elevation. Next, our roads will have smooth curves of various profiles, which will immediately make the terrain look more realistic. In conjunction with new photorealistic textures, new technologies, new light and shading, all of the above will work together to create something that from the air looks really, really close to reality.


I think this is where the doomed 'promises' arose from. He wasn't far wrong, though. It will get there.

Oleg must have been confused when he said that in 03-04-2009..

Becuase that means CoD was only under dev for 4 years before it was released..

5 years if you count the time they have been working on it since it's release..

But..

There are several forum members here stating that CoD has been under dev for 8+ years before it was released!

9 if you count the year they have been working on it since it's release

And god knows they know better than Oleg! ;)

Yes I know remember the quote of the opengl, DX debate. Oleg first annouced BOB in 2003/2004 for a release at the end of 2005, which I thought he said they would use a new 3d engine. I couldn't find Olegs quotes from that time period, but there was some Oleg quotes in May 2005 which mention the new 3D engine.

------------------------------------------
Tom: The Battle of Britain has been rendered either in whole or as part of quite a few games from CFS1 to EAW to Rowan's and Shockwave / GMX's Battle of Britain. In the IL-2 series you never really concentrated on this aerial battle. What compelled you to look at this battle in particular?


Oleg: In IL-2 series we didn't model it because we were planning to get new 3D engine and new fundamental features before to begin this process. In IL-2 series is too hard to model Cliffs of Dover looking real. As you know me, I like to get such things always looking well and natural.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.simhq.com/_air6/air_220a.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

Other SimHQ interviews with Oleg Maddox see bottom of last page.


http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_341e.html

Quote---------------
But don't let this fool you into thinking the change had happened by 2005. It was most likely 2007 when they scrapped the first build, which was the video we saw on the Il-2 DVD (hence the similarities between the two).
End Quote-------------

You are probably right they thought about building the sim on the old engine in 2004/2005 as we know now they couldn't have built a new game engine for BOBs release by the end of 2005. That said I think they were building the new game engine long before 2007, but the changes you see could be the change to Speedtree, or they were still using the old game engine to build aspects of the sim until the new game engine was more usable.

Agreed 100% Ace.

The sim has been in development for a long time (since at least 2005, so some 8 years) but the game we're playing today is really only 4 years old or more. It has a lot of the first build present, but really I think it's easy to underestimate the complexities of using a new engine for the first time.


@Chivas, that quote from Oleg on the cliffs is interesting. See the video from the 1946 DVD, and the Cliffs there look quite poor compared to what we have now. So they went ahead and started work, but then changed? They should have released it as an expansion for Il-2 to keep us busy! aha

Must be that new whiner math? :confused:

If you carry the 2 it all adds up....

Can a Mod please cleanup this thread. I only interested in news from Sukhoi (like the thread title) and not on this boring sensless needless Monologs.

If you start development a sim in 2004 but then start again in 2008 because what you made so far wasn't good enough it still counts as development, you think they got the development money back for the 4 years they wasted?

Friday Update will be this evening.

Thanks BlackSix.

There ya go. No patch. Awesome, won't have to stay up. Already know the update news.

good to hear. :-)

Thank you!!!