Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday Update, January 27, 2012

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Friday Update, January 27, 2012 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=29368)

Quote:

Originally Posted by 335th_GRAthos (Post 386585)

The only thing that makes me sad is that on average I invest 1000-1500 USD every year on PC hardware but only 40-50 USD on 1c. So 1c gets the most of the "heat" but in reality the guys who profit most from 1c's work is the hardware PC industry... :(
~S~

I agree, it's crazy how little we have to pay for the software in comparison.

In terms of progress....I'm also looking forward to them tweaking the FM, CEM etc. as that is my thing. I know they are working on FM fixes but my guess is that the massive graphics rewrite is absorbing much of the effort and they are wanting to nail that one before focussing more on the things that matter to me.

I hope after this next patch we can start seeing a lot of loose ends being tied up by the team, making a more polished product.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 386474)

...............................
I want to work on a project for a dynamic campaign some point during this year. I want the mission script to check if my airfield has enough fuel, then top up my tanks and remove that from the airfield's total. When i come back and land i want the remaining fuel to be added to the total. When the airfield is low on fuel, either due to attacks or normal use, i want it to trigger an AI convoy that will bring fuel from the fuel dump to the airfield. If the convoy is attacked and destroyed then sooner or later it's no fuel for you mr. player, spawn at a different airfield.

I would say this falls under the heading of 'playability'. It is the lack of 'playability' and 'it doesn't feel like the Battle of Britain' that is keeping some of my friends away.

Yes, CoD is playable and I am really enjoying it because there is just enough available to keep my love of virtual 'flying' and 'combat opportunities' engaged but the kind of campaign Blackdog_kt is describing will bring a lot more palyability and 'feel' to what is at present a workable but slightly flat combat simulation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 386559)

There is no competition because no major company is willing to develop complex sims that are far to expensive to make, in a genre far to small to make any serious money. Microsoft, Rowan, etc etc have left the building,
...................

Oleg Maddox didn't run away with the code,

An interesting angle is that Microsoft haven't left the building but they have redecorated substantially. Read this while you consider why 1C are having so much trouble with CoD ...
http://flyawaysimulation.com/news/43...osoft-studios/
You will see that MS are targetting the 'Gamesters', including their addiction to game pads or playing with a mouse so no 'simmimg' investment would be required. It seems it will have a limited free environment/terrain and planeset all of which can be added to by purchasing and with a gaming style of 'rewards' if they use the Windows Live aspect and there will be 'missions'. I suspect the Flight Models will be very good, probably with 'easy/gamer' settings and I expect they will be successful in selling it as a 'game' that is simple to install and run and it may even draw 'gamers' into our ranks of 'simmers'.

Now many CoD players may not want that 'gaming' style of play but 1C seem to have been positioning themselves for the gaming market with, as Oleg explained, a switch from OpenGL to DirectX for porting across to other platforms. That is, in the opinion of a number of posters here, what threw a large spanner into the works and accounts for 'why doesn't it look like it did in Oleg's early previews?' which were perhaps rendered in OpenGL.

So, MS's primary market looks to be the Gamer not the Flight Simmer, hopefully ensuring a financial success, whilst 1C appear to be doing it the other way around by catering to its established 'simming' market before moving to game patforms.

I am from China

很关心IL2 COD，

有几个问题想问下，

first :什么时间出 IL2 COD的服务器版？

second: IL2COD下一个版本应该是 64位。

lanling 请使用在线翻译
Online translation:
Very concerned about the IL2 COD, there are several questions to ask next, first: what time of IL2 COD server version? second: IL2COD the next version should be 64.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt (Post 386474)

So, it's also a matter of personal priorities. For me things like AA are the least of my issues. If they came to me and told me "hey man, we'll do the patches in the order you say", i would tell them:

"Visual quality is good enough, if it's performing well too then stop working on it for the next 6 months. Then give me a bit of documentation for the libraries so i can start making some C# scripts, fix the FMs,improve the CEM and fix all bugs in the logic of aircraft controls/systems so that we can fly what we have."

Sadly though, for a technical oriented crowd like we flight simmers are, there's a whole lot of "FPS-style benchmarking obsession" going on which leads to missing the big picture. Nothing wrong with other gaming genres, i play TF2 all the time. But the priorities of making one type of game are not the same as making another one.

I want to work on a project for a dynamic campaign some point during this year. I want the mission script to check if my airfield has enough fuel, then top up my tanks and remove that from the airfield's total. When i come back and land i want the remaining fuel to be added to the total. When the airfield is low on fuel, either due to attacks or normal use, i want it to trigger an AI convoy that will bring fuel from the fuel dump to the airfield. If the convoy is attacked and destroyed then sooner or later it's no fuel for you mr. player, spawn at a different airfield.

In other words, i want to make a supply system that will make what you do online matter. And the engine gives me the tools to do it. So, you can understand how much of a shame it is that these tools are undocumented because through all these months apart from the valid performance and stability complaints, the rest have been requests for purely aesthetic aspects like the nature of tracers or a couple of jaggy aerials.

Sure, visuals and sound are an integral part of the immersion process. So is having a proper environment to fly in though, otherwise we would all be looking at photos of warbirds to get our fix. :rolleyes:

Excuse my disappointment, but the amount of people who miss the big picture of

a) what the sim tried to achieve and
b) how the complexity of that goal is actually the cause of its problems

is too damn high.

Yes agree...I remember Oleg talking of this utopia, where knocking out a generator, or a rail line and all the associated ramifications...that's game play!!:grin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 386590)

I know they are working on FM fixes but my guess is that the massive graphics rewrite is absorbing much of the effort and they are wanting to nail that one before focussing more on the things that matter to me.

Try to think for others too, for a change. Most ppl have various performance issues (usually when effects are near, more planes in dogfight etc.). Including me. You have very powerfull rig and not all of us can afford that (latest quad cores and SLI systems with latest GPUs). OK my rig is pretty decent (i7920 OC to 3.5Ghz, GTX470 TF2 OC to 800 Mhz on core, 6GB DDR3 working at app. 1333Mhz.) but stil have very noticable fps drops (slowdowns) when effects are near (dust, explosions, fire from my engine etc.). Yes, Ive been a beta tester, have a long history dealing with games and software optimisations and I did everything I could to optimise and speed up my PC. I gained smoother game after that but like I said its still very slow on some occasions. And I dont want to play this sim on low to med video settings (just to gain more speed) because then its not CLOD but some outdated sim. I suppose most folks ("ofliners" and "onliners") have even less powerful rigs than mine. Im not saying I cant play this sim but the optimisation of the core engine should be their main task. For now. Later they can deal with FM fixes. Im all for that. With time ppl will upgrade their rigs and with upcoming optimisation of the core we all should be able to play this without (big) issues.

I am from Chinese

I am concerned about the next version of IL2 COD.

Efforts to improve the next version to the following questions.

First: I hope that is 64-bit

Second: To improve the number of video game screen

Third: To optimize the graphics for example: NVIDIA AMD

Fourth: to give up now version IL2COD

The next version of IL2 COD can be independent of the current version of IL2 cod

The current version of IL2 COD model can be completely moved to the next version

Because these modeling has been very mature friends.

Including injury, ballistic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tvrdi (Post 386609)

You have very powerfull rig and not all of us can afford that (latest quad cores and SLI systems with latest GPUs).

Nope, wish I did though. I'm in the same boat as you Tvrdi and have to run at 1280 (or something like that) on mainly low settings.

I have an i7 920 2.66Ghz but only 2GB memory and an ancient GeForce GTS 250 1GB card - and running XP too.

I think you misunderstand me....I definitely support them fixing the core performance issues with the graphics rewrite - it will benefit me a great deal I hope. I was just pointing out that the big list of outstanding issues that they appear to be ignoring is probably due to them wanting to get the core fixed first.

Oleg is still with us...

Hey I saw such 3D models of planes here before.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 386612)

Man... it is just not possible, mkay? Nobody knows what really happened prior to Oleg farewell, but something HAPPENED, and since that time all screenshots look different and result is what you got. It looks like all new things were deleted and poor Luthier had to start over with empty table and unfeasible deadlines and incompetent workforce.

But... not my problem anymore. Reading it here just because of nostalgy, and just to see the SIGNS again, even here, how everything is going to hell...

One more thing to react...

Someone pointed out that WWI planes are so primitive that it is possible to simulate them better and quickly, and WW2 planes are so complicated with their CEM and other stuff, that it takes years...

What about DCS A-10? If your argument is correct, we should not be able to fly it, because it would be still in development... (MG spent already 7 years on WW2). Based on your argument, I would expect simulator of A-10 around 2035...