More on epilepsy in Cliffs of Dover

[mazex]

Well, the real lesson from this is for Ilya. Dropping comments like the first ones on the night of the pre-release was something you:

A/ Gained a lot of respect for - after all it was not your fault but Ubisofts!

B/ This whole story started another storm in the water glass and you MAYBE lost a bunch of "customers" that have been following the game for six years but now cancelled their orders just hearing this bable-fished rumor!

C/ Lost a big percentage of the REAL customers that will finance your further development of the series as the rumor of the anti epilepsy scheme will spread all over the world like the fire here in the forums.

My vote is at B if this is handled correctly.

Just make it work and delay the release in the rest of the world until you have acceptable frame rate with medium settings on a decent midrange computer bought last year. Not having that is something the reviewers will never accept, even though I will accept if until version 1.08 like I did with RoF.

If an 8Gb Core i7 with a GTX460/HD 5870 does not run the game decently you will crash in flames when the big reviewers put their teeth in this game... They don't care who's fault it is, and neither do the potential REAL customers. If making the anti epilepsy code optional is necessary then make 1C and Ubisoft understand that - or work around it.

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by mazex

Just make it work and delay the release in the rest of the world until you have acceptable frame rate with medium settings on a decent midrange computer bought last year. Not having that is something the reviewers will never accept, even though I will accept if until version 1.08 like I did with RoF.

If an 8Gb Core i7 with a GTX460/HD 5870 does not run the game decently you will crash in flames when the big reviewers put their teeth in this game... They don't care who's fault it is, and neither do the potential REAL customers. If making the anti epilepsy code optional is necessary then make 1C and Ubisoft understand that - or work around it.

A delay is the most reasonable thing to do now. There are already cancellations all over the place, just browse through various flight sim related forums. It will hurt the sales, no question about that.

[mazex]

Originally Posted by T}{OR

A delay is the most reasonable thing to do now. There are already cancellations all over the place, just browse through various flight sim related forums. It will hurt the sales, no question about that.

I do agree that the pre-order cancellations are for sure real even though I can't understand how long time followers can be so short sighted and abandon MG in "their finest hour". The RAF lost in France but when pushed against the wall in Britain they delivered - in version 1.04

They just have to fix the stuttering which I am sure depend on a lof of things as I would be very surprised if the game was running at 50fps on a top notch single GPU rig while chasing 30 He 111:s over London with a squadron of Spitfires before this problem... And this engine MUST do that.

Those customers that have pre-ordered must be simmers, how else could they have heard of the game considering Ubisofts lack of advertising efforts on this title? And as Ubisoft sure must have known about the problems, the lack of a proper marketing campaign may have been very much a deliberate action. If they did not believe that they would get the game into a stable release state until late March - why put down a big advertising campaign? Postponing release dates is hardly something any gamer will be surprised about. Look at Diablo III, GTA 5, The Old Republic etc. The list is long.

And we even don't know if it was Ubisoft or 1C that put the pressure up. It is 1C that is the main publisher and they DID publish the game with stuttering problems that are now blamed on the anti epilepsy scheme pushed down the throat by Ubisoft (?) (if that is the main problem).... Have we heard anyone bashing 1C here? Maybe it is 1C that really has put the ultimatum up, no more money if you don't have an RC done before the first week of march... This time we mean ít. Someone has paid for the six years of development, and when gold platers like Oleg get free hands they can continue adding knobs and rivets for ages. Sorry to sound harsh but as a development manager myself for a team that is of about the same size as MG I have some experience of that myself.

Anyway - my pre-orders stays whatever the next storm in the water glass will be - and I wish the team good luck on getting the bugs squashed!


EDIT: In my BoB allegory above, is it really Ubisoft that is Germany and 1C that is Italy pushing them into the wall before being prepared? We don't know if it is the opposite

[Herra Tohtori]

Ok, see, I realize the post-processing filter is one reason for bad performance. And I realize it'll eventually be removed as the mentioned individual issues are "addressed" one-by-one.


I have a problem with the need to address those issues in the first place.

To put it in simple terms: If the real situation has a flash and it's removed from game graphics because of some arbitrary epilepsy screening method saying it could trigger seizures, that's detrimental to the quality of the graphics of the game even if it runs at fluid 60 FPS on a five years old PC.

Flashes are part of reality, and removing flashes from simulation where they would be appropriate will reduce the realism factor of said situations.

Artificially degrading the quality of the effects for everyone just to appease some lobbyist group worried about seizures makes about as much sense as removing killing from first person shooters to appease Mr. Jack Thompson.

This is the main problem I have: Ubisoft's blanket policy on this matter. If they have this requirement as part of their quality assurance testing, then that quality assurance testing is misguided.

And if they categorically refuse to release games where it's possible to turn neutered anti-epileptic effects off in favour of more realistic effects, then that policy is a failure for a simulation game.

I'm not going to comment on speculation that this is just a smoke screen for bad performance etc. etc. What I want is a game with realistic portrayal of flight and associated plays of light and shadow, within reasonable limits of current hardware of course.

This filter thing, regardless of whose decision it was to apply it to the game, is not reasonable in my books. If it were voluntary, fine - but mandatory reduction of performance and quality, especially for a reason such as this is not something I could be happy with.


I'm not going to cancel my pre-order for this, however. I'll get the game, try it on my rig, and if it doesn't run properly I'll wait for patches to address relevant issues. I would, however, be tremendously disappointed if future patches don't fix the effects to satisfactory realistic levels.

I wish that somehow, at some point, the developers and players can both be satisfied with the game, that the developers find a way to deliver a version to the players that they originally intended it to be.


Well, I think I have said all I have to say about the subject at this time. I wish all the best to the developers in their quest to deliver a functional game to customers, and I'll be following the state of the game with great interest.

Meanwhile, while the problems are addressed, I can always return to the skies in IL-2 1946...

[Zoom2136]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

Ok, see, I realize the post-processing filter is one reason for bad performance. And I realize it'll eventually be removed as the mentioned individual issues are "addressed" one-by-one.


I have a problem with the need to address those issues in the first place.

To put it in simple terms: If the real situation has a flash and it's removed from game graphics because of some arbitrary epilepsy screening method saying it could trigger seizures, that's detrimental to the quality of the graphics of the game even if it runs at fluid 60 FPS on a five years old PC.

Flashes are part of reality, and removing flashes from simulation where they would be appropriate will reduce the realism factor of said situations.

Artificially degrading the quality of the effects for everyone just to appease some lobbyist group worried about seizures makes about as much sense as removing killing from first person shooters to appease Mr. Jack Thompson.

This is the main problem I have: Ubisoft's blanket policy on this matter. If they have this requirement as part of their quality assurance testing, then that quality assurance testing is misguided.

And if they categorically refuse to release games where it's possible to turn neutered anti-epileptic effects off in favour of more realistic effects, then that policy is a failure for a simulation game.

I'm not going to comment on speculation that this is just a smoke screen for bad performance etc. etc. What I want is a game with realistic portrayal of flight and associated plays of light and shadow, within reasonable limits of current hardware of course.

This filter thing, regardless of whose decision it was to apply it to the game, is not reasonable in my books. If it were voluntary, fine - but mandatory reduction of performance and quality, especially for a reason such as this is not something I could be happy with.


I'm not going to cancel my pre-order for this, however. I'll get the game, try it on my rig, and if it doesn't run properly I'll wait for patches to address relevant issues. I would, however, be tremendously disappointed if future patches don't fix the effects to satisfactory realistic levels.

I wish that somehow, at some point, the developers and players can both be satisfied with the game, that the developers find a way to deliver a version to the players that they originally intended it to be.


Well, I think I have said all I have to say about the subject at this time. I wish all the best to the developers in their quest to deliver a functional game to customers, and I'll be following the state of the game with great interest.

Meanwhile, while the problems are addressed, I can always return to the skies in IL-2 1946...

+1

[Novfanaion]

Just ditch Ubisoft already.

[carguy_]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

Ok, see, I realize the post-processing filter is one reason for bad performance. And I realize it'll eventually be removed as the mentioned individual issues are "addressed" one-by-one.

It seems that many people misunderstand what Luthier`s saying. In the "rest of the world" version of the game, the filter is on. No options here. Now the Russian version has a conf.ini way to turn it off. What is the problem with translating the same version to Europe and US? If they had that idea in mind, then they wouldn`t have to work on anything.

Now what they are working on, is making the filter not eat up fps so much (it is a side effect). They are not working on how to turn it off. Hence, if you buy any version outside Russia, you just have to deal with the filter.

I have a problem with the need to address those issues in the first place.

To put it in simple terms: If the real situation has a flash and it's removed from game graphics because of some arbitrary epilepsy screening method saying it could trigger seizures, that's detrimental to the quality of the graphics of the game even if it runs at fluid 60 FPS on a five years old PC.

Flashes are part of reality, and removing flashes from simulation where they would be appropriate will reduce the realism factor of said situations.

Artificially degrading the quality of the effects for everyone just to appease some lobbyist group worried about seizures makes about as much sense as removing killing from first person shooters to appease Mr. Jack Thompson.

This is the main problem I have: Ubisoft's blanket policy on this matter. If they have this requirement as part of their quality assurance testing, then that quality assurance testing is misguided.

And if they categorically refuse to release games where it's possible to turn neutered anti-epileptic effects off in favour of more realistic effects, then that policy is a failure for a simulation game.

I'm not going to comment on speculation that this is just a smoke screen for bad performance etc. etc. What I want is a game with realistic portrayal of flight and associated plays of light and shadow, within reasonable limits of current hardware of course.

This filter thing, regardless of whose decision it was to apply it to the game, is not reasonable in my books. If it were voluntary, fine - but mandatory reduction of performance and quality, especially for a reason such as this is not something I could be happy with.

I feel exactly the same way. I was always 100% for the realism and not seeing any of the flashes I got naturally used to in IL2:1946 is going to leave a bad impression. The game might really be crippled.
I really think this is a bad decision.
You can`t say to a hardcore sim community 10 days before release that you`re cutting out 20% of its realism.
You can`t say to a pc oriented community 10 days before release that you`ve crippled the fps by an average of 10.

For the reasons listed above I can`t possibly buy the game. I never accept a bad quality product. 1C, don`t say that it is all right because it`s not. You significantly neuter the game two weeks before the big day but you still want me to give you money. I`m sorry but in this case you won`t get any from me, unless ofcourse I can get my hands on the Ruskie version that is.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by mazex

Just make it work and delay the release in the rest of the world until you have acceptable frame rate with medium settings on a decent midrange computer bought last year. Not having that is something the reviewers will never accept, even though I will accept if until version 1.08 like I did with RoF.

If an 8Gb Core i7 with a GTX460/HD 5870 does not run the game decently you will crash in flames when the big reviewers put their teeth in this game... They don't care who's fault it is, and neither do the potential REAL customers. If making the anti epilepsy code optional is necessary then make 1C and Ubisoft understand that - or work around it.

You said it all mate, this is really pathetic ...