|
Everything's in place it is basically complete, all they need to do is optimise the engine and then start work on new aircraft.
That's it we have the new engine yes it's bugged but thats hardly surprising. All we have to do is wait for more content to come along, which it will and like some others on this forum the level of detail in the models, DM and cem have blown me away. I haven't touched 1946 since cod arrived. I just wish I could fly over London with 60 fps and when we can do that man everyone will finially have to open there eyes and see what a amazing job MG has done. |
No, it's not basically complete. It's basically beta. Go to the first page of this thread where luthier has the word BETA, "there are things in the pipline", "not a complete list"...etc. It's all beta now guy. They didn't tell us that when we bought the game. I'm not complaining, that's just reality. There are no 128 plane online battles going on right now. "60fps over London", I don't think the hardware is out yet to do that.
|
Oh he of little faith and no imagination. :) time will tell.
I don't disagree that they should have delayed the release but all that is missing from cod at present is polish. If you have so little interest in Cod why don't you spend your time elsewhere instead of moaning? |
I'm not moaning and I still have interest in CLoD. Just don't understand how guys can blow off UP 3.0./1946 because of the CEM and DM in CLoD. I just don't get that. Sure it's more realistic, but not that much different. I have flown CLoD 109, so I'm not making this up out of thin air.
|
You couldn't have flown it for more than 2mins then.
The damage model blows 1946 out of the water around 10 times the number of components that are modelled in 1946 and the sane for cem. I could take off in 2 seconds in 1946 and not have to worry about anything until the temperature warning came up. In cod the first few times I took off I would soon find myself juddering towards Dover and have to turn back before my engine failed. By the end of my time playing 1946 I had turned from a wonder woman flyer to a cockpit on only, but I was not expecting to have to keep my eyes on so many more dials than we currently do. Now its easy to keep an eye on the cem but I am still learning about the new fm. As someone said before if you fly wonder women view and little cem 1946 has more content but if your a full cem guy then you won't be able to go back to 1946. |
Quote:
|
If you are a fan of the cannon armed,small aircraft with a thimble full of fuel, and prefer your enemy engagement at low altitude over small maps with a historically inacurate biaed in favor of the VVS planes, IL-2 1946 is what you want to fly.
COD offers a more realistic " simulation " of the WW II aerial combat even with its limited plane set and single map.I am hopefull COD can make it to other theaters of operation, where navigation and weather play a significant role in the success of an enemy engagement. |
good for you that the next planed scenario is easternfront again :D
you know, because of the small, canon armed, not much fuel carrying nimble ones ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In terms of being a fan boy of anything... Shut it because you know nothing about me and or my experiences with both Cliffs and Mods for that matter. The sad reality is the wholly grail of WWII Flight Sims is far from being complete. If you're happy with puffs of smoke and other fancy "Special Effects" so be it but it doesn't make Cliffs any better than a 10 year old game like IL2. Right now you can't argue that Cliffs is broken in many areas hence why so much is being worked on right now. I bought Cliffs quite a while ago and because it's so broken I haven't bothered to waste time with it beyond playing several hours after each patch. It became very clear to me this thing is a long way off. Regardless of how much you are in love with the game I have a different opinion and I get to voice it as much as you do. In the mean time keep the personal stuff to your self it doesn't help you in your attempts to argue. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have the hardware and like others have posted CloD is nothing more than a shell of a game at the moment. Sure it will improve but turning on Magnetos and flipping a prop switch is not going to hold interest for very long. CloD is missing a ton of content... Just look at what was promised and see where that is at this time. Maybe you need some coffee |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But as I said, if you prefer IL-2 then fly it and perhaps wait until SoW (remember the 'SoW' concept?) has more to offer you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Nah, i actually have to chuckle at the thought of me trying to win anyone over as i'm a "do as you like as long as you don't axiomatically expect me to like the same thing" kind of guy. I would just appreciate it if people who are disinterested in CoD simply follow their own advice and stop paying so much attention to it. This would let the rest of us focus on bug reporting, community made content, documentation and so on, you know, things that will probably benefit everyone in the long run :-P On a serious note, the CEM and systems workload in IL2 is dead simple for this day and age, so much that it does qualify as a co-pilot with magical powers. CoD is not perfect either (i actually expected more) but it's much better and at the very least it has the basic foundation set right, which is completely missing from IL2: the way you work with what your aircraft gives you can cost you your virtual life without a single shot being fired at you. If you want to know what it really means to operate (not fly, operate) a WWII warbird or something from a similar time frame try the A2A add-ons for FSX (P-47, Spitfire, Boeing Stratocruiser), the aerosoft PBY Catalina is also a good one in terms of CEM. Then try to think how it must have been like having to do all that in the midst of combat. Further on, if that is too much of a hassle for your taste, just fly on a server with disabled CEM. Ironically enough, i don't even have my own copy of FSX (i just fly it when visiting a friend of mine who's got a bunch 3rd party add-ons ) and it was that which put the first nail in the IL2 coffin for me. Suddenly i was all "damn, is it really so complicated to fly an airplane? bah, these are modern ones with avionics and what not", because like every other propeller-head combat simmer i was under the impression that's it's all mostly throttle, stick and rudder (which it is for the most part, but in reality you have to actually turn things on and make sure they remain on). Then i tried the 1940-1950 designs and they were even more of a handful. It was such a revelation i actually had my buddy give me a crash course on it. Then we spent 3 consecutive evenings taking turns on the controls, saving mid-flight and continuing the next day, while flying a 10 hour flight in a Catalina (Bahamas to St.Marten) with real-time weather downloaded off the internet. To this day, it's among the best flying hours i've probably ever logged in a flight sim. Why? Because that rickety old plane needed so much care to stay afloat and complete that run, it actually felt alive. Not to mention the feeling of satisfaction when we finally managed to get all things running in their sweet spot range and have it cruise effortlessly (though sedately at a mere 100-110 knots indicated, there are cars that go faster than that :grin: ) while we finally had time to focus on properly following the flight-plan, tuning the radio navigation beacons and staying on course. It was not only a "have my hands full" situation (in reality Catalinas are not meant to be flown by a single pilot, even today), it was more nerve wracking than certain instances of flying combat in other sims. And i got hooked to that and wanted to see it in a WWII-era combat sim, IL2 couldn't give it to me and i started flying less and less of it. Obviously, you shouldn't have to suffer for my choice of gameplay and you have tools to avoid that in the realism/difficulty options panel. I shouldn't have to take what for me is a giant step back to 2000 either, but if a sim doesn't even model all that plane-particular stuff i like so much, then i have no switch to choose if i will set them on or off, or a server with appropriate settings to fly on. If it completely lacks what i consider a huge part of the actual workings of getting an aircraft in the air and keeping it there, along with how this lack of workload combined with the small maps imbalances the historical tactical considerations and results in unrealistic engagements and player behaviour despite the realistic FMs, then i just have no choice in the matter. And that's why i can't go back to IL2, because there's a new sim that gives me that choice. I hope this provides a satisfactory answer to how i can ignore IL2 and the new mod packs and patches. I'm not mod-averse either, far from it, in fact i was eagerly expecting a new UP release and the TD patches, mainly because i loved flying mosquitoes and WWII nightfighters was one of my all-time top of the wish-list item for flight sims. I would have flown it like mad but then CoD happened, shuffled the cards and ruined IL2 for me pretty much. In other words, what you describe as imaginary things, plus many more on top of them, is a very real part of aircraft operation that you are just not interested in, so you are content to fly a sim that doesn't model them in much detail, if at all. However, other people will place increased importance on them and will gravitate to a sim that does. Quote:
Despite the lack of content IL2 had something that i couldn't yet pinpoint, which was much much better than EAW. The same thing happens to me today between CoD and IL2:1946. I don't actually fly CoD that much in the proper sense of the word, i'm mostly testing, but what i see makes IL2 feels very "artificial" to me for lack of a better word, just like EAW felt artificial compared to IL2 back in 2001. |
I just wanted to add that the sounds disappearing in MP have killed COD for while for me and my friends. We need a fix really quick for that, it should be one of the absolute top priority. There is just not much at all to do in single player, and MP without sound just won't do it for us, we've gone back to IL2 UP and RoF and I'm the only one still checking the forums here actually. In a few months it will be hard to convince anyone around me to come back to COD. Even though it started high, my trust has eroded a bit and I'm worried about the chances for COD to survive on the long term... So keep up chasing the bugs, it's needed more than ever and it might be a little bit early to call the quick patches and hotfix period over.
|
Well blackdog I think you just sold me on the catalina.
It is hard to go back even to clod after flying the accusim spitfire, but the amount of work those guys put into that plane, which also meant having access to the real thing, I don't think it's fair to expect that level of quality in every plane in a combat sim. Also the a2a spit costs almost as much as clod on it's own. Hope this new patch comes soon. |
Quote:
A very good summary of my feelings too. It is so hard going back to IL2, even though CoD needs more work... |
Same here, I share Blackdog_kt's views on this and can't go back to IL2.
I want to be able to get as close to the experience the pilots had in those days. I want to be able to get a good representation of what they had to do and I also want to know if I could do it. We'll probably never be able to simulate G forces, fatigue and disorientation that real pilots had to contend with but anything we can simulate I want included. IL2 just feels arcade-like after COD, yes I've modded up but it just doesn't come close. I really enjoy the procedures you need to follow to keep your plane in the air, however not that much that I'll fly FSX as I also need the excitement of hunting or being hunted. |
yeah, I concur, too - The basics of CoD are just superior to Il-2 and going back is really hard. And that's what makes me even more angry, as we have the choice to get annoyed by the CoD alpha or do that step back to Il-2... a dilemma that shouldn't have reached the end-user at all.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Totally agree, my old man loves Il2 ..hes just happy to sit as a gunner in a Lancaster,b-17 etc and shoot some planes but for me it looks crap, i mean real bad and as you can see that is with the latest mod packs..
Il always have mucho respect for the creators of Mods for Il2..~S~ But for me it looks rubbish now, the cockpits are just rubbish, it reminds me when i was playing WW2 online (subscription) as a pilot, oh the days :) and then come over to Il2 which was about 5-6 years ago..the difference in detail, cockpits even FM back then was amazing..i never went back to WW2OL just as i cant go back to Il2 now, if this game failed and ceased to exist then yes i would as its a ww2 sim and thats my tipple..always has been The bugs are dam annoying in Clod but i hope that they are soon to be ironed out and that we can then start to enjoy new content etc etc just like when Il2 was first released, lack of AC, biased AC, performance issues etc, lack of content.. Ive vented my anger in these forums more than once and ive upset some folks so appolgies if i offended anyone in the process but i will still be here playing this game for a long time yet, even in its current form i enjoy it more than Il2... that reason is the only reason i care about |
First to say I don't like the d*ck length comparisons and the squabbling CloD vs RoF. Where does the testosterone and the territorial jousting come from? What's the point? RoF has - in my opinion - currently the far superior offline experience, despite the perceived or real FM/DM issues (don't have the time to play ATM so I can't check it thoroughly). CloD is - at the moment - not more than a very interesting flight sim engine with a load of potential ... and an equally large load of bugs and issues. But one thing it is not: a game. I haven't found any gameplay so far - the campaigns are a bad joke, the FMB is still very much a work in progress so the community is very limited in what it can do with it to improve the campaign situation and a number of key objects (read: warships) aren't present at all so a realistic campaign is hard to create anyway.
Once the technical issues with the engine will be fixed the real challenge for Maddox Games will come: giving the engine a campaign system worth the name. This I consider a much greater challenge than fixing the numerous technical issues (regardless how obstinate these prove to be, SLI anyone? :rolleyes: ) because it requires not only technical skills such as 3D modelling, creation of textures or coding but sheer creativity. |
i dont think anything about "gameplay" will come from the oficial side.....
A more userfriendly , or a least a proper documentation for it, FullMissionBuilder and a working eventlog files should enable the community to create at least the same on- and offline experience like in IL2. I can remember , after 2 month of original IL2 release i had already plenty of online COOP missions in my logbock. And i was in missionbuilding. Nothing so far about that in CoD. That the secanario/planeset is limited we knew long time before CoD release. So that is no reason to complain for me (even i dont realy like the BoB scenario, but thats a very personal opinion!). Comparisons with RoF i also dont like. Its a game from another developer. With a FMB far from beeing simple i have to ad :D ............ And it has also its Bugs and little mistakes - as IL2 had also for all its years :) In a time when CoD will 'work' for me, i still will fly RoF too. |
Yes even though my squad doesn't fly rof I have and still plan on supporting them.
Unfortunately it's not ww2 and the planes are quite simple and it's very hard to compare two aircraft like you can with the 109 and spit. The ww1 planes in the axis and allied sides are too different (I know some can be compared but at the end of the day the Germans had manoeuvrable aircraft and the allies fast ones). |
Quote:
http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewto...p?f=45&t=18901 The issues sound very similar to COD. |
yep, but at least:
"After months of testing and a lot of headache, our official recommendation to users about adopting SLI/Crossfire for ROF remains the same. Our engine was not designed for it and implementing it was very difficult and as I mention above the results are somewhat mixed. We still recommend that you invest in a really strong single card solution to boost your ROF frame rate if you feel it necessary. We suggest you save the money you would spend on a second video card and use it to buy a better processor if need be http://riseofflight.com/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=20189 |
Franky - I disagree about gameplay not coming from the developers. Quite frankly they'll have to deliver at least a platform that enables the community to create campaigns and missions with ease. Right now ... Well, ask Tom from Desastersoft about the campaign interface as it is. If you know what I mean.
I do remember sharing my thoughts on campaign systems with Oleg years ago. I still have some of the documents we exchanged on my HDD and what was listed there, ideas and concepts mostly as well as some details we came up with, would be very useful for a very good dynamic campaign system. That's what they'll have to deliver and quite honestly I firmly believe that a dynamic campaign engine needs to be an integral part of the game and not a bolt-on accessory that behaves like a spare rocketpack. ;) |
Quote:
Is it just flight sims that are making the multi gpu cards have issues with micro stutters etc or are other genres of video games having them as well? The last two motherboards I've build systems around where chosen for SLI support, unfortunately the original IL2 had issue with SLI, so I never went and got the second card. Is the current SLI/Crossfire technology fundermentally flawed? The only real success I've had with SLI was the performance increase I got with Janes Longbow and a couple of Voodoo 2 cards! cheers! Cheers! |
I'm very much looking forward to Desastersoft's campaign "Fliegerasse - Helmut Wick vs. J. C. Dundas". I did enjoy two of their campaigns for IL2: Fall Blau and Eismeerjäger tremendously.
And I really hope the COD campaign engine will be enhanced, so at least scripted campaigns can be created properly. |
Quote:
In IL2 it was the FMB and the improvements over the time the eventlog got and the release of a deticated server software (<- took its time) This enabled 3.party people to create missions, campaigns, online wars COOP, scripted dogfightservers. That is what i call gameplay content. IIRC nothing of that ever was from official 1C MaddoxGames. I never expected a full switch from the gameplaypossibilites from IL2 to CoD. I can remember it took years of experience to come to the IL2 status of 2010. But now with CoD, time will tell. I stopped missionbuilding as i saw i need some kind oftrigger/script to put something easy as a missiontarget in the mission. Not to talk about the CoD COOP play..... |
personally i don't have problem with ROF since i running everything on very high and maximum
i really enjoy it espesially online:grin: |
Luthier...still on track for Friday the 17th?
How's it looking for Friday beta release?
|
Simply put I use the term "dynamic campaign" meaning dynamically generated missions within a believable environment, but I do absolutely not speak about gamey crutches such as "a single pilot single-handedly wins the war" (or loses it, for that matter).
|
Quote:
And i bet, He Was just hopeing, Every one had forgot :grin: |
Quote:
|
What beta?
|
His original post said the beta was tentative for June 17 so I was just trying to manage everyone's expectations as a public service.:)
|
To manage everyone's expectations in a safe way I'd rather say "2 weeks be sure" :grin: The key word is "tentative" as usual, you know those Parkinson's Laws.
Just kidding. |
Dude the British would have been defeated if they had continued to pound the airfields it was due to the bombing of cities that gave the RAF the relief that they needed to be able to continue fighting.
|
What is the purpose of this? You will only get an answer when Luthier comes online to post the update, in which case the answer will be obvious.
If you're so bored, take a breath of fresh air and see what the world really is like. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Bottom line is the game is half baked. Some day we will see it fleshed out. |
Bottom line is that this prematurely released sim is getting better with each patch.
It is really not necessary to denigrate it again and again with the same stale facts (real and imaginated), which are, btw, weighted differently by different people. |
I think is going to be tomorrow, lets wait
|
Will be nice to know if not a word means 'All is good, and patch coming out as predicted', or 'Because of unpredicted problems, it's not going to happen, this or next week':-P
|
They said " Its going to be more comunication between Users and Developers" http://imgur.com/5X0hu.png
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Those that don't like CoD can go their own way. If they are not interested that's their perogative but please stop bleeding all over us although, like others, I will try to persuade those who are unsure. Those that are interested in it can wait patiently while we feed the bugs back and the devs work on it or buy it and try it (and support the bug reporting if they like). There are many of us that accept that its still being fixed and will still be around when it is but if this sim fails we are stuck with IL-2 and its ten year old technology, FMs and DMs (no matter how smart the mods) and nothing else new in WWII sims of the IL-2/CoD type for the foreseeable future, if at all. Apart from re-dressing, IL-2 has almost reached it's limit and don't forget, TD are denied permission to create a BoB scenario in IL-2, the archetypal WWII air battle and one of the largest air battles of the war. CoD is only the start of a new standard in WWII simulation providing it gets the support it needs, and please don't regurgitate the 'why is it it like this/how could they' arguments, we've heard them all and we've a good idea why. Accept it or leave it but please, stop bleeding over it, its old news. |
Quote:
|
I remember when COD was released and no was as diapointed as I ,and I even whined for a little while which I regret.After seeing the effort that the guys at 1C were putting in my spirits rose,and I cant thank them enough.The game is cool I dont have many problems now,and the ones I do have are minor,and not worth commenting on well done 1C.
Iam content in the knowledge that the game can only improve,and be the leader it promises to be.I would also like to point out that some people have selective or short memorys I remember Il2 when It was first released and it was not much better but look how that game progressed with the release of each patch,and progresivley there after.Guys if you dont like the game then leave it and go fly some thing else each to their own.I for one have the patience and confidence in 1C to know all is good and I have much to look forward to |
The fact that they stopped bombing airfields gave the RAF some relief does not mean that if they hadn't stopped then the RAF would have crumbled.
It just gave them time to reorganize and replenish the pilots. At the end of the day they came through for Britain and we as a nation owe more to them than any other fighting party |
its friday friday friday!
gotto get down on friday friday! ~where is the patch? :grin: |
cough
|
Quote:
We were in a pretty shi^^y state as far as Airfields and AC goes...them changing the target area at London and other cities gave Britain the time it needed to replenish Aircraft and pilots as well as fix AF's.. Who knows what would of happened if they kept us on the ground...very very hard to stop an evasion if you havent got an airforce to help stop it and the enemy has a free ball park to pound any defense we have/had. But in that situation Hitler was fighting to many fronts at any given time... i could pretty much guarantee if he chose to not do that and brought the fight to Britain first and when he first thought about it with a continued attack on our Airfields to start...well i think things would be very different |
1C needs to learn the meaning of "commitment".
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think hes revering to the fact that were still not having updates, communication etc etc ;) |
Quote:
|
Today?Maybe?
|
Quote:
|
The drum roll is missing. Who has drums?
|
Belly tanks for the109s would have made a difference too...more time & confidence over Englandoften overlooked...whats this have to do with much needed patch?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Shipping : Canada i know was making Hurries and spits and mossy's, Lancasters and shipping them over the pond along with metal and fuel aswell with US arms o the point that later German U-boats were seen and sunk off the coast of Canada So was it that Germany Thought they had crushed the RAF already and moved on to demoralize the english people, Or Gave up on trying to crush the RAF and figured a surrender would come by bombing London. After all Doolittle tryied to scratch Tokyo to prove a point My thought was. Germany had bombed other countries Airfields then cities with little fight back and stuck with the same tatic figuring they had beaten the RAF from misguided reports Letting the RAF form defence patterns with radar RAF also had time to move air fields and cover those ones that would best suit defence They also knew that Fuel would be a major issue for Germany. I keep remembering a quote a pilot used : Would you rather shoot down 50 esorted bombers with bombs or 100 unesorted bombers after they droped there bombs .....He never told me the answer but that was a tatic used back then. |
If Churchill had been replaced by Lord Halifax in May 1940, there would have been no need for the Battle of Britain.
And this could have happened. If the Dunkirk evacuation had not been successful, Churchill would have been forced out of Government. He was not popular with many in Government, particularly the British 'aristocratic' German sympathisers who saught appeasement. Don't forget, the British Royal Family was and is of German heritage. Equally, if the German Luftwaffe had attained air superiority over southern England, Churchill would have been ousted. |
Quote:
The thought of our own Government appeasing with the Nazi's after Poland is a complete joke,it would'nt have happened. Like him or not the man was a genius of politics,if the Germans had invaded this country,any leader of this country would've been ousted,period,this I would imagine to most would be a no brainer:rolleyes: |
next patch info?? I thought this was a high level historic-geo-strategic forum. but maybe i am a little OT.
|
It was never likely an invasion of Britian would take place, after the Norway debacle the German High Command were loathed to launch any sea invasion.
At sea the invasion of Norway proved a significant setback. For the Kriegsmarine the campaign led to crippling losses, leaving the Kriegsmarine with a surface force of one heavy cruiser, two light cruisers and four destroyers operational. This left the navy weakened during the summer months when Hitler was pursuing plans for an invasion of Britain... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
and History repeats...
We lost Britain, lets move forward to Moscow...
There is some déjà vu in it. Salutes. |
Beta Patch???
Seem to have gone OFF TOPIC here. Question is - where is the Beta patch?:confused:
|
Quote:
|
I'm falling in the OT trap ... but Lord Halifax literally trembled at the idea of taking over from Neville Chamberlain, he had psychosomatic troubles when he was asked to give his availability to be the British PM.
Indeed, Churchill was chosen upon Chamberlain's indication, after the repeated refusals of Halifax. It seems very unlikely that Halifax would have been available in May 1940, when Britain was well into the thick of the frail. And as far as an appeasement, I'm sure that neither the royal family nor the Britons would have accepted a brutal diminishment of their Empire, influence and wealth, the logical consequence of a reddition to German expansion. Cheers! |
Quote:
http://www.picshag.com/pics/102009/need-patience.jpg or I can't wait any longer... http://izit.org/sites/izit.org/files..._Fall_2831.gif :) |
its out..
|
Well .. What to say .. there are so many things to fix and other settings to adjust for this sim to be more realistic....
I would fix-adjust some things for sure... |
As the next patch is out and we're OT on Churchill, etc., if Britain had appeased Germany we would porobably be speaking Russian now.
If Germany had still invaded Norway.e.g.for resources then our hand would have been forced by an iunvasion on 'our' side of Europe and we woulkd proibably have gone to war anyway but if Germany had not...... With no need to invade western Europe Hitler could have concentrated all his forces on defeating Russia - his primary goal - and would quite possibly have captured Moscow and Leningrad. However, Stalin would have done what he did anyway and withdrawn to the Russian interior to re-build. Russia would almost certainly still have defeated Hitler and then, with no USA involvement in Europe and seeing Western Europe's appetite for appeasement, he would quite likely have kept on coming. By that time his armed forces numbered in the millions and Western Europe would have had nothing to challenge him with - or would have challenged him with the same failuires as 1940 in Belgium, Holland, France, Norway, etc.. By then the Soviet Air Force would have been considerably larger than the RAF and much more experienced, having fought the Luftwaffe, than the Luftwaffe was fighting the RAF in 1940. |
Is the blue lines bug for ATI users fixed?
|
multiplayer sound bug still exists, although I played for an hour before it happened.. Thought it was good until that. A friend I was playing with got the bug around the same time I did. Back to DCS we go.. usually I'm not too fussy but that sound bugs a show stopper for me..
never ask for anything before but I have 1 request... stop moving away from realism, I want the original mechanical gauges back. At least make it optional.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
realistic gauges option +1
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.