|
Quote:
|
I haven't trawled through the 21 pages yet, but the cockpits and colours in the video look a lot better (like the ones from a previous Beta).
Awesome update! Thanks! |
Looking good BS.
I'm enjoying the game as it is currently despite the problems- the potential shown in these videos is inspiring. The mission possibilities will be mind-boggling and the progress on the optimisation of the graphics looks very promising. |
Quote:
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/156...sannahyork.jpg By furbs9999 at 2012-02-17 |
Quote:
Pure historic battles only work offline, now this is a part where prospects to make money aren't too good. |
Interesting, good news about the FMs, it's the meat and two veg of flight sims and all the gorgeous cockpits in Christendom aren't worth a brass farthing if the FMs are FKD. I noticed the wireless whip antennae on one of the tanks moving, not sure if it was an animation or was responding to game physics, but it's an impressive bit of detail. This jarred a bit with the transition of a vehicle from operational to destroyed when it was hit by strafing 110s, but I guess it's early days yet. Certainly the series is ambitious, as it should be. The future's bright, thanks very much.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thx for the update!
Really looking forward to these improvments concerning the FM. The ground stuff will not be that intresting for me, but looks nice! Ehhh...do we have to buy a Steering wheel???There`s not THAT much space left on my desk...not to imagine what we have to install, when we will be able to sail with the ships-Jesus, my wife will kill me! |
Quote:
i hope we will get accurate modeling for the tank and artillery guns (which the sim is already able to do with its advanced physics modeling), and have some good ways to control them and interact with them (which we dont even have for aircraft yet, let alone for ground vehicles). eg, for any kind of gameplay you need to make a tank unit move from point A to B (either by staying on roads, or directly through fields and forrests etc). you need to be able to instruct them as unit leader, so they engage (or avoid) the enemy when sighted, dig into stationary positions when creating a defensive position waiting for an enemy to come to them, get them to disperse when enemy aircraft attack etc. similarly with ground artillery units, you would need to be able to accuratly lay down an artillery barage at the correct grid points, and have the shells do the desired and historically correct damage where they land (on buildings and ground objects or vehicles) i think it is great we are about to get some 1e person control over vehicles, oleg and Co have been working on this for years, but we are still a significant step away from it adding a ground sim element or for it to be functional enough to have tank simmers start buying the game :) speaking of which, we dont have the 3D craters yet !! (which we know oleg and Co had included in their game design) but i agree, lets try and post some links to this video in tank sim forums, i am sure some of them are interested in adding an air element to their tank sim, and it will get them keeping an eye on further il2/SoW devellopments (and become future customers once some of these gameplay elements and damage models are added later) |
Quote:
we need more ships, big ones in particular, destroyers, some battleships etc, but we dont need less :) the german mine layer is a good element to have in the game, but make it functional at least, and they need to allow us to instruct it to lay mines in specific area's :) |
Quote:
1. It's not unusable. Our crew are regularly getting into scraps on our server and we have formations of 30+ enemy regularly. 2. How many have actually tried? I mean, with respect, I don't remember ever seeing any TP online, and since you are admitting that 40+ of your guys haven't bought it yet anyway then you can't have tried it. 3. Look at the bigger picture. Without expansion you won't have a sim, it needs funding and this market is too niche. It isn't 2003 anymore. My regards to Hatter. |
Quote:
|
And so are the days of our lives..
Wow.. made it to the final page.
Lots of speculation from the drama department as usual I see. Just keep the blinders on. The first game I played online was a "flight sim", and I remember the first time ..shooting down some pixels on the screen that formed the shape of a plane. But it was SO much more than that. I knew that there was someone sitting at their computer shaking their heads (with a slight feeling of humiliation or disgust) as their plane crashed to the earth. And this feeling still continues just as strong when I'm shooting down planes years later. When this is all put together and "done", and I shoot down a spitfire, drill a bomb into the cavity of a tank, or hit the old guy driving needed ammo to an airfield's tea party, I can have that same satisfaction that got me interested in the first place ...to know that I just ruined another human's day with my trusted 109 :grin: it's awesome.. Friday Updates are great, thanks! |
Amazing update guys, well done and thanks.
I've been wanting to explore all that lovely environment from day 1 - an MG trip to the coast would be very entertaining. Great news on the FM updates too. Feeling very positive about things. Keep it up.:grin: |
Looking good
Thanks Blacksix, interesting update. The Ju88A-4 looks very good in summer cammo.
I like the autumn scenery for the BOM map, looks like two maps for the BOM, a winter and an autumn? Keep working on the aircraft FM, the better it gets the more realistic they fly. Hope you can get the aircraft decals working properly, especially decals on the ground static aircraft, they are now looking very forlorn and unrealistic. Now to the driveable ground vehicles. I think this a very interesting new scenario for the game. In the old IL-2 Sturmovik, when creating historical air campaigns in the FMB, I always tried to recreate an accurate historical land battle going on underneath the air battle. I would look for high points of ground to place bombardment artillery and develop a tank battle between the two sides, fully testing that everything works. From the air you could see the shells exploding on both sides, watch the vehicles moving and shooting, see buildings being destroyed and feel the flak rocking your aircraft and occasionally hitting it. The ground battle was always an important factor in creating an accurate air campaign. With this development you can immerse yourself in the ground battle if you wish, it will also help you develop a more accurate ground battle below for the air battle above when working in the FMB. You can see the ‘lie of the land from your vehicle or tank window’. In the ‘Battle for Moscow’ scenario, the ground battles grew in ferocity as the German army approached Moscow, then the Russian Army did a counter offensive in a bitter winter scenario – the air battle raged and intensified overhead. In the BOB + scenario, you have the ‘Battle of France’ then later ‘Dieppe’ and ‘D-Day Normandy’. Then there is the Mediterranean (‘The Med’) scenario, hopefully a new map(s) will come along. Anyway, I can go on and on. The main things I hope part of the team are working on are all the missing parts of the sim, the weather, full SDK for the FMB, static aircraft decals, better communications, strategic campaign situations, refuelling and rearming scenarios, animated pilots, aircraft/airfield lighting, operating radar etc. etc. DFLion |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Mmo??
now with this being developed...what are the chances that the DEVS will make this in to some type of MMO type game hosting servers (thus making it a pay to play MMO) I for one would welcome this...(though i would feel bad for ww2OL )
#1 the user base will increase, and game play would also change having human tanks to bomb and human artillery and AA to evade aught to change the game in many ways... #2 hopefully it will gain enough traction so the devs can have more money to devote to making the game better... #3 this seems to be the direction that Military sims or Online War games are going which is combined forces like ww2ol...its nice to know they were not asleep at the wheel when it comes to this.... ANYWAYS my point or question is...will the devs develop this further to a MMO type game or environment...maybe you can buy the game and its like it is today with single player and multilayer, but to access these continuous persistent war server would require a monthly fee, obviously having this capability for free for all to use would be best for the user in a short sighted kind of way...but in the long run this may be best for the community and the devs as well... |
Excellent update B6.
Quote:
|
Quote:
If I understood Lu' correctly, the project CLOD as an geographical and historical one is done - they moved on. The said they will fine-tune the engine, and the result will be available for the clod owners as patch (as well). You can be sure additional planes and decoration (like the "H.M.S. Ridiculous", lol) will eventually find their way into the game series, included in the sequels to come - but not as patch for bob. Quote:
The community dislikes our ships. Hm. Obviously we suck at it - let's move on and focus on something we're better at. ;) Sure, you could just try to improve, but i think ships are a rather expensive adventure. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Speed of the air across the wing and the effect it has |
Great news, seems like a major patch is to be expected, hopefully by next Friday and available on Steam. :-P
I think the ground playable vehicles for the moment should be considered as just an additional feature of another additional feature (having nice targets). If I read B6's post correctly, we can expect whole range of flight particular problems to be solved. I think he didn't (and I hope) put enough emphasis on this in his post. I think the new shiny bits (ground playable vehicles) got the most attention since its something new and "exciting", which as a result distracted many people from the relevance of the upcoming (hopefully) patch. Also, might I suggest to rather release the patch as soon as the decal issues have been resolved and not wait till all the issues with ground drivable problems or flight models have been sorted? It has been a rather long wait between patches... |
Great update, stunning!
But...I sadly consider the fact that after 1 year after the release we don't have a dynamic weather engine in CloD ( not even a static one), BoM seems not different. Cheers |
Thanks for the update B6! One step at a time... ;)
Once again, the most important thing is to fix the core engine (something that the BoM update seems to deliver). 3rd parties will add more content to BoB. No need to pressure Ilya and the team for that. |
Thank`s a lot guys for your hard and wonderfull work. The video looks very amazing.
One week can beeing so long. But every Friday is like christmas:). A nice weekend and refreshing time Towarisch |
thanks for the update ...
... very impressive ! Maybe you can add some indy cars of the 1940s as
controlable vehicles later on, something like this here: http://www.carguynation.com/deals/bo...1940sbook.html then we could do some racing. :grin: |
Quote:
I can't imagine my day could had started any better regarding comments. |
Quote:
...which is a very good thing ;) ~S~ |
Some objections...critics...
Hi everibody!
Guys from the dev. team, please, check the view points in to the vehicles, and CHANGE the resolution of the textures with higher resolution, and make the 3D models of the handles, and ather features of the arms and vehicles ralistick as the same features in to the cockpits of the aircrafts. Phisical model is great! It is very srange when hit by bulet vehicle turns in to burned scrap immediately for the part of the seccond! I think, there have to be some middle phases of damage fire and destruction. Thus way the current status of the damage model of ground objects is very poor... I would like to say that this sim WILL RULE the NEXT 20 Years! Regards! <---BG-09---<<< |
Some news on SLI/Crossfire pleeeaasseee........Got a GTX 295 top that runs every single game you throw at it perfectly but CLOD.
Please |
Quote:
IIRC, CFS and FS used a parametric FM, or a variant of it, while XPlane adopts a physical model with several "slices" and separated wings. Cheers, Ins To all: Please, stop using again the expression "layman's terms", enough is enougH :-D |
Not bad. Perhaps it will evolve from the movie making software into a functional flight / tank sim. :)
Thanks for the update. |
Re. the FM, I dug out a question I've asked one year ago, with Luthier answer:
".... Insuber: How are the Flight Models done? Parametric, fluidodynamic as in X-Plane, mixed ? Are they different from Il-2 ones, or just an evolution of them? Luthier: We did a huge technical interview for a print magazine, where our FM programmer wrote like two pages of stuff on it. I'll see if we can publish it here, because that would be a much, much better answer than anything I can type up...." I never found the answer, btw. Cheers, Ins |
Quote:
If this is true then it's fantastic news. Have you seen footage where an aircraft loses a wing suddenly? - it spins violantly due to lift being created on one side only. We don't have this in CloD ATM. This could also make behaviour more realistic when: 1. you lose a section of wing 2. enter an accelerated stall Great stuff.:grin: |
Did anyone notice anything different about the spitfire take off sequence? I figure it was included for a reason but I didn't notice anything new really - perhaps you've got to fly it and "feel" the difference?
|
I've tried hard to get my sons interested in flying but no luck so far:(. With the addition of vehicle modelling this could change as they love things like BF 1942.
Can only be good for the sim to inject some new blood I reckon. And there will be folk who cross over to aircraft in this way. |
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Arrows A quote from that wikipedia article: "By 1937, the supercharged engine of a Mercedes-Benz W125 attained an output of 646 hp (475 kW), a figure not exceeded in Grand Prix Racing until the early 1980s, when turbo-charged engines were common in Formula One. The Silver Arrows of Mercedes and Auto Union cars reached speeds of well over 300 kilometres per hour (186 mph) in 1937, and well over 400 km/h (249 mph) during land speed record runs." Imagine sitting in a car like this with 600+ hp over 400km/h... http://escala-18.com/images/modelos/...0M-052%206.jpg http://www.autowallpaper.de/Wallpape...eil-W-25-2.jpg |
...yes mazex, ...
... a silver arrow would be nice, hehe, ...
:grin: |
Quote:
EDIT: These cars are not irrelevant for BoB as I'm pretty sure Daimler-Benz/Mercedes put the knowlege aquired while developing these beasts into their engines used during the war... EDIT: And as a fuel for war a result table like the one below from Donnington in 1937 must have annoyed a bunch of brits ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Donington_Grand_Prix A quote from that page that sends chills down my spine... "Away beyond the woods we heard the approaching scream of a well-tuned E.R.A. and down the winding slope towards us came Raymond Mays. He changed down, braked, skirted round the Hairpin and was gone. "There's the winner," remarked one of my friends. "Knows this course backwards." Half a minute later came the deeper note of a 2.9-litre Maserati, and "B. Bira" (Prince Birabongse of Siam, Mays’ nearest rival and a new star in the racing firmament) shot past us, cornering with that precision which marked him as the master he was. "Or him," said another. We waited again. Then they came. Far away in the distance we heard an angry, deep-throated roaring – as someone once remarked, like hungry lions impatient for the arena. A few moments later, Manfred von Brauchitsch, red helmeted, brought a great, silver projectile snaking down the hill, and close behind, his teammate Rudolf Caracciola, then at the height of his great career. The two cars took the hairpin, von Brauchitsch almost sideways, and rocketed away out of sight with long plumes of rubber smoke trailing from their huge rear tyres, in a deafening crash of sound. The startled Pressmen gazed at each other, awe-struck. "Strewth," gasped one of them, "so that's what they're like!" That was what they were like." |
Q: will we be able to use 100 octane fuel on the race cars? And what about 100 octane fuel for the British destroyers? Priority number 1 be sure ... :-) :-):-)
|
more nonsense
Plz make user changeable hairstyles for the Spitfire girl.
In my offline campaign the player will date the Spitfire girl once he manages to get an "ace" status. They will drive the car together (so goggles are needed for the Spitfire girl) and authentic '40 style hairstyle with either blonde or brunette hair :D That is, dynamical colour of hair must be implemented. Edit: Seriously though, consider making female models for VVS pilots. AFAIK females were doing combat flight missions in WW2. |
Quote:
They will get the colour of the lipstick wrong and somebody will complain about it... |
Excellent update. I am in the game to fly fighters so I doubt if I will be driving tanks too much although I am sure I will give it a go. But the more complex, full and real the world I am flying in the better. So long as I don't lose too many of my precious fps of course.
Video seems to show some good improvements in colour, texture and shadow although the proof will be in getting the actual patch so bring it on. |
Great work, cannot wait.
. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Link: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29759 The good ole Forgotten Hope 2 mod for Battlefield 2 is rather fun actually. Naturally the planes are completely arcade but why not have a game for the ones that like high fidelity simulation of vehicles and can take some arcadish ground combat to spice it up? Besides, if tanks are well done we could have a bunch of people playing "Tank only" servers and that cash flow would not hurt the ones spending time in the "plane only" servers? The combination is naturally the Grail, but like commented here before it's very hard to make a "combined simulation" work as planes flying at 500km/h+ needs hundreds of kilometers of maps but tanks would simply be too spread out then, driving for an hour like in warbirds only to be "ganked" by a flight of Stukas... |
He he , it is reminding of the first version of drivable Volkswagen Kubelwagen
still with the first early alpha unfinished interior :smile: Good old days , be sure ....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKSFRANHnLc |
Quote:
Dont get the wrong idea, we want CLOD to be a massive success and we want it to be the combat flight sim of choice for everyone, but compared to the "multi-player" playability of IL2, its just not there. It speaks volumes in my mind that the only decent multi-player server out there is the ATAG one and that is primarily a dog fight server. IL2 has on 2000+ players on-line most nights in hyperlobby and lots of coops. I like the vehicles BUT the hours spent on them could have been far better spent getting the other issues fixed first. We at T.P have waited for 7-8 years to fly a BoB style campaign in a simulator that could do it justice, CLoD was meant to be just that, so you will understand our dissapointment. Still maybe we call all "drive" a multiplayer race around the airfield perimeter track looking at all the lovely aircraft that we cant fly together? :grin: No_145 Bunny |
Don't forget about this feature, we need them for training:
http://www.river-studio.com/raf_bicy...ry_headder.jpg |
Quote:
|
Quote:
My top list of favourite games: 1. Flight Sims 2. ARMA style games (can enjoy BF series too) 3. Tank warfare games 4. Wargames 5. Racing games 6. Role playing games With that list you can imagine that it's a wet dream for me with a CloD version with tanks and ground combat, with 1930 racers as a silly bonus and a strategic interface as the icing of the cake in a few years :) Wait - add some roleplaying element too and the list is covered on all bases... :) |
Wow, I am probably the only one in a group that supports this flight sim compared to others.
|
Quote:
|
Ive been saying COOPs are badly needed since the release but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
|
Just think, Once people start driving their Wirbelwinds onto opposing airfields, nobody will ever complain about Vulchers again!!!!!!
|
Quote:
Most Tank/armor/infantry game players are used to maps that are postage stamp sized by comparison to flight sim sized maps. It would take hours at the speed of a WW2 tank to get from the "front" to an opposing airfield, and that's with no interdiction by enemy aircraft. Also remember that the Wirbelwind for Clod will have a realistic rate of fire and accuracy. It won't be the death star it is in IL2. There is/was a mod for IL2 that allowed you to drive a Jeep or Kubelwagen. Ever tried it? Start at a base on the Kuban and see how long it takes to get from one end to the other. :cool: |
Quote:
Together all flew 1481 hours (counted our hours on Steam as well) So a bit unfair to insinuate that we didn't actually tried. I think we rather tried hard to fly together, would'nt you agree? No43_Tigertooo Tangmere Pilots |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I like the idea of cruising around the landscape, mostly to sight see. Even if its a dumbed down version of ground vehicles. Playing around in armor shooting at buildings and such appeals in a limited way too. But I really can't see this developing into a situation where some players decide it would be a great idea to re-create the evacuation of Dunkirk or later the Red Ball Express during an online war scenario. I can't imagine many guys who are into armor "investing" in CoD with the idea it might someday feature fully functional tanks either. I hope not too many resources get dumped into what looks like a novel feature in a flight sim.
The video looks good. Hope the patch does what so many are hoping for. |
I think the ground vehicles are fun and obviously a lot of work as gone into them, but for me it as zero value, i just want to drop onto a formation of enemy bombers without stutter and ground flickers and Crashes to desktop. Other than that a lot of time well spent, thank you.
|
Great update. I remember playing Aces High years ago and enjoyed jumping in a flak position to defend a base from paratroopers. The ground enviroment in Clod is so nice it would be a shame not to be able to roam around in it.
Tree's right though when he expects/wants the flying side of the game to be stutter free and optimized before any ground expansions arrive. I personally think the ground stuff won't show up before the game's optimized. It's slow and stuttery enough as it is now on anything but the fastest hardware. It (ground vehicle sim) may be a good move to get a wider audience onboard if they make it as realistic and detailed as the flying part is right now. I still see people asking for a realistic weather system every now and then. Weather killed more pilots than enemy action so if it's realistically bad you won't be able to fly a lot of the time on the Eastern front. Make it realistic looking but without killing the framerates. I thought the nasty weater in Il2 makes it hard enough to accomplish a ground attack mission as it is. Not sure if it's worth all the recources to make realistic weather. Maybe 4 or 5 years down the road the hardware can do it all, right now it can't. |
Perfectly reasonable to want the 'stutters' fixed etc... but why do people keep repeating that all the time as if to suggest that's not being worked on?
I thought thats exactly what the patch is supposed to be adressing, in the mean time they are just showing other goodies we can expect. |
Tank You.......Really,T-A-N-K-S Alot!!
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Organized squads are a part of the remaining 20% that flies online and i don't know how much of that 20% it constitutes: while organized online wars and coops were a big part of the community scene, so were the objective based DF servers and the free-for-all ahistorical, pure dogfight servers. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here, but combining stats straight from the horses mouth with the distribution and make-up of online hosts (easy to see for all, just fire up hypperlobby), it doesn't look like organized squads being the main source of income. I think we are all jumping to conclusions a bit here, some to what they wish for and others to what they fear ;) The way i see it working out long term is something like this: Quote:
The good things here are that a) These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Depending on difficulty settings, VAC approved mods and missions, each server can cater to specific audiences, from a BF style small map ground scenario to a full blown online combined arms campaign. b) The people in the development team who would be left with nothing to do are given something to do in the meantime, something that has the potential to draw more buyers and most of all, buyers from genres that will be somewhat easier to cater to. The people who play CoD or BF won't be so demanding in what they expect, because let's face it, modelling a foot soldier is many orders of magnitude simpler than modelling a tank or an aircraft and (surprise) it usually sells more as well. This constitutes a very good return of investment, especially since the physics and ballistics to support all kinds of combat are already in the sim: make infantry models 5% of the time and potentially gain many more buyers, which in turn lets them spend that remaining 95% of the time and money gained to model the expensive but hard selling aircraft to us. I think it's a clever scheme and if they can manage their balancing act well (priorities, etc), it will be good for all of us. Heck, if this goes well we might not even have this discussion again because maybe they'll have enough cash to hire a dedicated tank team or FPS team, or simply outsource it to 3rd party studios or modders. The bottom line is that they can spend a bit of time to create something that can potentially fund a stream of extra flyables for us, while giving us a richer gameplay environment as well. Best thing of all, this doesn't cost us anything, it would be idle time anyway if they didn't do it: like it or not, different people do different jobs in game development. The guy who is doing vehicles probably only did the suspension in the aircraft, explained it to the aircraft guy and moved back to making vehicles (code resuability and so on: "change this parameter here in the code for shock absorber travel, change this for stiffness", etc) In other words, the fact that he's working on a truck dashboard (with a minimal amount of gauges, less controls and systems than an aircraft and an already working graphics engine to cast shadows over it and already working combustion engine model) doesn't detract one bit from having a flyable Wellington. The fact that they need more aircraft guys detracts from it, but if the ground combat portion can "steal" buyers from other games they'll be able to hire more and do not only a Wellington, but a Hampden too and maybe even add a few ship guys to model a couple RN destroyers as well. To cut a long story short, the sim needs funding to get fixed. The options here are: 1) Start a micro-transaction model, which most of us don't like. 2) Send them money through a paypal account or something, which i guess most will object to because "i still didn't get the game i paid for initially". 3) Subscription based model which most of us again don't like. 4) Do it like the previous series, with sequels being used to fund the development of the core engine. Most of us like this, but some can't overcome the fact that for reasons beyond their control (and in some cases beyond the developers' control too), things didn't turn out as planned. The choice is simple: either spend our time on whatever works in the sim and play another game too from time to time while they fix the remaining issues, or cut our nose to spite our face by choosing option 5: "none of the above, i've been wronged so i won't contribute a thing, but i'll still complain if the sim fails". :-P And best of all, this contribution thing doesn't even have to be financial. Instead of complaining that "i've been a beta tester for years and couldn't get it to run well up until recently," just tell the rest of the forum how you eventually got it to run decently. Instead of complaining that "i couldn't bomb because the bombsights are wrong, you need to do some crazy conversions to hit the target", submit a bug report in the relevant threads and tell the rest of the forum how you managed to get a workaround going. Identifying a problem, reporting it and explaining to others how to avoid it or move around it is a contribution: it keeps people playing and enjoying the game. Identifying a problem and a solution, but only harping on about how it annoys us without sharing anything of value is just being selfish. It's not about positive or negative opinions about the sim. It's all about a positive, proactive attitude because if some people are committed in their minds to not enjoy the sim, whatever parts of it work well, they never will enjoy it no matter what. Quote:
|
Quote:
This is what happens when you lose half a wing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_A4xdGFXoE Duxford Flying Legends (Sunday show) 2011, the one that didn't crash lost the wing http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29.../Skyraider.jpg |
Here a better pic, its not half wing but yeah, he managed to land with this damage :
http://i43.tinypic.com/2hx924i.jpg |
Quote:
Blackdog i remember about 9 months ago asking you when do you think CLOD would be mostly bug free and the missing features added, you told me you expect it to take about a year. Its almost a year now...and il ask you again, when do you now expect CLOD to be mostly bug free and the missing features added? |
about a year doesn't mean exactly 365 days, it could mean 13 months.
|
^^
Yeah, and I bet that in 365 days any similarity with the CLOD released and the the current one will be pure coincidence ;) |
Why would anyone think that Blackdog would have the answers:confused::)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It is not something new that this sim didn't sell very well, but it is known, that a lot of money must have been spent on its development. this allows to think 1c took credits for the development and they have to get the money back in, in order to keep on developing and fixing. but anyhow...as it has been said before: the tankguy isnt modelling the airplanes or is into fixing a memory leak. this renders your anger quite invalid. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We'll need to capture some Me321's to get our Bren Gun Carriers onto the Blue runways then? That's be sort of the right timeline for the Battle of Moscow expansion? |
Hmm, that's exactly what we want if they are going to introduce vehicles - an Me-323. :)
|
Quote:
The thing is, when i'm making predictions and guesses about things i have no inside knowledge of, i won't pretend i'm actually knowing more than i do and i won't make a fool of myself by saying silly stuff like "it will be definitely fixed, by whatever definition of "fixed" any forum member prefers to abide by, at XYZ exact date". I'll just use that +/- margin to indicate i'm equally unsure myself and simply making an educated guess. Now if people want to take that as a hard and fast commitment on my part, someone who has no direct way to influence the outcome, the problem is on their reasoning and not mine. Overall, i'd say that things are going just like i expected them to go thus far: about a year for the game to be playable (playable means playable, it doesn't mean 100 FPS maxed out on mid-level hardware) on an acceptable range of PCs, then moving on to gameplay-affecting bugs (what they are doing now) while the part of the team that does non-optimization work sets their sights on future content to ensure a follow-up stream of cash flow down the line. As you can see, i don't have any illusions about the state of the sim. I just had more realistic expectations about it because of how difficult it is to do what they tried to do. Maybe it's a language barrier thing and that's why many people didn't get it, i don't know, but personally i more or less got what they wanted to do pretty early on and that's why i expected the troubles, it's a complicated undertaking overall. I'm not one for blind faith either, whichever way it might swing, so i won't make bold claims about eventual success or failure but i'm glad they tried to push some of the limits we had in the previous series. If it doesn't come to fruition we'll get a slightly better series, if it does succeed we'll get a much better one. It's fine by me either way. They could have simply made "IL-2 remake: better graphics" which would be much simpler and probably would have much less problems, i'd buy it and fly it as well but it would be just that, a remake. I didn't want that, i wanted new stuff and i got new stuff so i'm satisfied. I also got new problems (just like i got them when i first tried out IL2 back in 2001), but that goes with the territory of innovation. As long as they can remain in business they'll keep improving it and that's all i care about, in the meantime my life doesn't revolve around the lack of simulated 100 octane merlins. I'm in my early 30s, i have enough time left to see where the series is going and if for some reason i didn't, i would have more pressing matters to worry about than the direction of a flight sim series. What i'm trying to say is, this is supposed to be a hobby, something we do for fun and escapism from real life. If people aren't prepared to spend some time making it work and enjoying the learning process, then it just defeats the whole purpose. It's like building model kits and going "gah, it has no aerials! outrage!" or "the landing gear struts don't have wiring!". Well, take a lighter, burn the spare plastic framing, stretch it and make yourself an aerial, or take small rubber tubes, paint them and glue them to those landing gear struts and you've got wiring. I remember when i last made a model kit, it was a 1/48 scale grumman wildcat, i wanted it to have a belt and harness in the cockpit and the kit didn't have one. What i did was borrow a book with some good photos of the cockpit to see the shape and layout of the belts, cut a little strip of cloth mere millimeters wide, cut an even smaller piece of aluminum foil, grab a pair of tweezers and a magnifying glass and spend two hours of an evening wrapping that aluminum foil around that piece of cloth, then glued the whole thing on the cockpit seat. My wildcat cockpit had a seat belt, complete with its locking pin, i had a good feeling of accomplishment and i didn't have to e-mail the folks in Tamiya and complain about the lack of seatbelts on an otherwise excellent kit :grin: I don't know if it's because we've been spoiled, because our lifes get faster, or a combination of both, but it seems like an ever growing amount of people in all kinds of hobbies have lost the basic joy of it all: if it doesn't work the way i want it to i'll get my hands dirty and tinker with it, then share my results with the other fellows instead of just sulking about it. |
Quote:
this one is an example of making it home with extreme wing damage, not all significant wing surface damage results in an instant and complete loss of control http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...avenger_lg.jpg note: afaik no carrier landing was attempted however, they ditched in the water once they reached the carrier taskforce |
I'm sure the devs have long since stopped reading this thread, but what are the drivable vehicles going to add to the game? Are you planning on adding other multi-player modes besides "dogfight"? Are you planning on some manner of Battlefield 1942 style play? If this will be usable in online play, will someone driving a tank or a truck count towards the number of people able to fly aircraft? Assuming a game is limited to 64 people online. If one person is on a tank, does that mean that there can now only be 63 people flying online?
|
Quote:
Very well said, Cheers. |
Quote:
|
Hmm,
I think they've well been modeled long ago, like many modules with this sim. It's just now they are finally able to put them together. Reading between the lines long ago about the detail level of the ground units, I definitely saw this coming. Notice these videos are almost 2 years old. It's no wonder they showed hatches opening etc! It's because people will be in there! :) Good stuff! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvPlp...ure=plpp_video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-WKU...ure=plpp_video |
Quote:
We still don't have the Royal Navy, for ex., but people is happy for the cars........pathetic. Would be better a video about an improved (debugged) CEM for ex.. This is still a flight sim about The Battle of Britain. The show must go on. Considering this, please give us (italians) the Balilla, so we could have a trip by car. http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/4541660.jpg |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Blackdog, i guess your idea of a functioning sim is different to mine.
Dont get me wrong Blackdog i like reading your posts, but to me they are a fantasy rose tinted version of CLOD that i dont see when i fire up CLOD. I hope your right and CLOD turns into the greatest sim of all time, i just see a sim that is still a mess after a year of patches. |
everybody sees what they want to see.......
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
p.s. not an attack at anyone personally.......wouldn't want more angry PM's |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The BF series and RO are perfect examples.. Both have so so first person shooter aspects Both have so so ground vehicles aspects BF has so so air vehicles aspects BF has so so sea aspects WWII Online is another, but I have not tried it in years so I don't know its current state, but when I did try it, it too was so so in each aspect There is only one game that has done a good job of this.. And that is the ARMA (aka operation flash point) series.. They do it all (FPS, land vehicles, sea vehicles, and air vehicles) but their main focus is on the FPS aspect. That is to say all the vehicles are secondary and not very realistic in how they operate If 1C takes that approach, where their focus is on flying, and the rest is secondary I think we will be ok as flight simmers, Some say that is the impression they get from 1C reading the Russian forums But if 1C tries to apply the level of detail in their planes to all the ground vehicles.. Well my fear is they will loose their focus on the flight simming aspect.. I fear the long standing rule of jack of all trades, master of none will be hard to beat |
S!
Well the root for the CTD has been found and fixed which is good news :) So with the forthcoming patch and later FM/DM fixes CoD will really to begin it's take-off :) |
Thread cleaned up again. Keep it on topic and your personal spats out of this thread.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Whats my point from earlier post? I have more than a decent rig and really I shouldnt be forced to set almost all to med or low just to be able to play...thats silly...all other games including very demanding ARMA2 and ROF are runnig rocket fast... yes I know well get optimisation patch....thats my hope.....thanks for teh suggestions mate |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.