Friday Update - December 9, 2011

[salmo]

Thankyou for the update BlackSix. Your efforts are much appreciated.

However, I have to say that the response to requests for documentation on the FMB, triggers, switches & scripting is unsatisfactory. It's been 9+ months since the game was released with no (zero, nada, zip, nil) fmb documetation & to recieve the response " People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose." simply beggers belief

IMO, the game will not mature until the community can get actively involved in enhancing the game, for this they need documentation & the SDK's. That way, the community can develop certain game enhancements while the Dev's continue to improve the core of the game.

I just looked at the on-line COD server list , which makes very disappointing viewing. It does not bode well for the game's future. Just 12 on-line game servers, 11 of them empty & one with just 10 players only on a weekend (Friday night/Saturday).

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by salmo

Thankyou for the update BlackSix. Your efforts are much appreciated.

However, I have to say that the response to requests for documentation on the FMB, triggers, switches & scripting is unsatisfactory. It's been 9+ months since the game was released with no (zero, nada, zip, nil) fmb documetation & to recieve the response " People who can write the documentation are same people who improve the game. They are buried in other tasks and cannot yet put the game away and start writing prose." simply beggers belief

IMO, the game will not mature until the community can get actively involved in enhancing the game, for this they need documentation & the SDK's. That way, the community can develop certain game enhancements while the Dev's continue to improve the core of the game.

I just looked at the on-line COD server list , whch makes very disappointing viewing. It does not bode well for the game's future. Just 12 on-line game servers, 11 of them empty & one with just 10 players only on a weekend (Friday night/Saturday).

All this is a function of the sim being unfinished. When the sim is finished then they can produce the documentation. You can't document something until your sure how it will end up. Same with On-line play, although its very playable online for people with decent clean systems, its not for othere with weaker systems. The sim still needs optimization. Off-line the sim isn't very good for anything but furballs. When the sim is finished and documentation complete, it will take off, until then a considerable amount of patience is required.

Yes we can throw the development under the bus for the constant unrelenting delays, but then what. (zero, nada, zip, nil) for the next ten, twenty years until someone else trys to build something this complicated. The almost limitless money pit of Microsoft along with everyone else gave up long ago.

[csThor]

It's rather telling ... I mean rewriting the gfx engine and the sound engine (and perhaps the physics engine, too?) means that they're essentially doing a new engine from scratch. So apparently something has gone thoroughly FUBAR during development of the current/previous one. Not to mention that there was a change in management, a whole new bunch of team members and an increase of employees to boot.

It is, indeed, not satisfactory that key features are missing - a real campaign system, the promised weather stuff, documentation ... But then rewriting a game engine is never easy and quick. Right now we've paid for an unfinished game engine ... and MG will have to deliver quite a lot to regain the lost faith of the customers with the sequel. I don't expect anything ground-breaking until the new title.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by cheesehawk

A few of the things we were told we were going to have (without digging up all the old threads): Dynamic weather, playable AA guns, a fuller map of England (Northern section), South France, Antwerp (assuming all of Belgium here, but can't remember if all was promised or just to the Antwerp area), SDK.

If like Chivas hints, they give those to us free at the same time as BoM is released, for CoD, then they're fulfilling their promise. If not, that's bait and switch for more money.

You might even get many of those features before Battle of Moscow because they will probably use COD to beta test them. There were never any promises about the size of the map., or most everything else for that matter. All they did was keep us informed over the years on the features they were trying to build into COD. Some features even those we don't even know about yet will also be delayed until the sim is further optimized or next generation systems are powerfull enough to handle them with palyable framerates.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Ctrl E

Reading these answers I would very much doubt the Moscow game will be compatible with CloD. Sounds like the have effectively dumped CloD and moved on to building an entirely new engine, which I doubt would work with CloDs messy code.

Sorry chaps.

what?

huffing glue much? where does it say any of what you assume?

Originally Posted by F19_Klunk

Do I interpret the answers correctly that the advertized patch aiming to fix many gfx problems and and was due in a few weeks, now is .. cancelled? or at least postponed to this "sequel"?

not the impression i get to be honest, the patch will fix/rework the engine and improve frame rate and appearance (getting this not just from the update post but another by devs). then battle of moscow will be an add-on/sequel that will add features like dynamic weather.

Originally Posted by binky9

OK, but this was a land battle, although I admit,with air support.

My point was that CoD is a flight sim. I guess the sequel will be more of a stand-alone sim with tanks, etc., rather than an add-on to CoD. Not so much an IL-2 CoD/Battle of Moscow, as IL-2 Battle of Moscow. I was wondering what those tanks in the CoD previews were for.

Does the CoD "Battle of France" campaign include land battles, or is it just the air part of the battle?

binky9

what?

Originally Posted by IamNotDavid

The goal is less whining, not more.

oh you optimist iamnotdavid

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Good Grief! I would not want to see that!

Based upon past addons and updates even if it is an merged game you will still have seperate maps!

[Edit] I changed my post as I miss-read the OP.

what, me eating a handful of bhut jolokias and crying like a little girl as my digestive system ignites, or flying off the edge of french and then onto steppes? nah, i meant like online dogfight servers, where a map ends and the next one loads you into a different theatre - think skies of valor or similar, where you can have an evening flying spitfire mkvb, zero a6m5 and then la5 (or emils, hellcats and antons) across the various map and plane sets.

Originally Posted by flyingblind

Thanks for the update. I guess the positive people will see it as positive and vice versa for the negative. Oh well.

This bit made me laugh:

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.

An excellent answer. Nearly wet myself.

i do like ilya's sense of humour

Originally Posted by xHeadbanDx

Yaaa for updates !!!! hope the squeal adds Americana and Russian planes.

lol whut?

Originally Posted by Chivas

Its highly unlikely that you will have to pay for the Battle for Moscow to get any new features like dynamic weather. It would probably be added as a patch to COD, although most people will probably buy Battle for Moscow and any new features will be added to COD, when they do a merged install. Personally I don't have that much interest in the Eastern front but will quite happily buy it to support further theaters, like the Med.

i find i have less interest for the battle of britain than other theatres, it's somewhat limited in scope, in that there isn't really the same mix of mission profiles as you get in, say, the pacific, africa or eastern theatres. or maybe i'm thinking like that because channel flying is the only thing on the menu, and you'd get tired of fillet steak if it was all you ate. having the variety of planesets and maps across an evenings gaming will be excellent.

[Frequent_Flyer]

The Battle of Moscow will be BOB without the channel. Essentially, the plane set will be early war trainers, with a timble full of fuel, flying short, limited in scope missions over bland uninspiring landscape, with inadequate ammunition. From my perspective this is dissapointing.However, it appears the sim in its present state may only be capable of the simple early war scanirios.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer

The Battle of Moscow will be BOB without the channel. Essentially, the plane set will be early war trainers, with a timble full of fuel, flying short, limited in scope missions over bland uninspiring landscape, with inadequate ammunition. From my perspective this is dissapointing.However, it appears the sim in its present state may only be capable of the simple early war scanirios.

I agree to some extent. The developers bank account and the publishers are probably pushing the developers to do another paid sequel as soon as possible. Then they will have more time and money to flesh out the missing or unworking features. Of course a few of the missing and unworking features should be working by the time the Battle for Moscow comes out. This scenario will probably evolve the same way with each added theater. Overtime average computers will be more powerfull allowing for larger theaters, and more advanced features. This has been a long hard road for the developer, and I don't see it getting much easier until the game engine is more refined and capable.

[Frequent_Flyer]

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.


In the Battle of Moscow,it will be interesting to see how historically accurate the , unreliable, underpowered, overheating to the point of combustion, oil spewing Yaks and LaGG's are modeled. Including the the yellow windscreen and canopy "feature".

I hope the Developers " discuss with some members of the community" the next theater . I know they certainly do not owe us this courtesy but it could generate some additional interest, at present this appears to be waning.

[Jumo211]

Hmmm....new patch ?
some of you are expecting new patch ? for BoB obsolete version ?
If the game engine code was fuked up and needs rewritting of engine
code I strongly believe the new game engine will be released with the
new BoM fixing BoB older version at the same time .
If it is true about game engine code rewritting and who knows what that
exactly means that I can't believe in my right mind this will be done in
" two weeks " .
It might make more sense for developer to scratch BoB update and get it
right again with new game engine for BoM release forcing you to get BoM
in order to update BoB ( conspiracy theory )
No matter how I look at it after so many years of waiting I feel I got
screwed anyway even if they fix everything tomorrow.
As sad as it might sound this is what I think is happening and I hope I am
wrong !

S! HG

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer

9. Can we have a Spitfire with Hispano Suiza 20mm cannon?

Quote:
We discussed this with some members of the community a while ago and decided that it makes no sense. If we make the guns realistically crappy and unreliable no one will fly it. And if we make the weapons unrealistically reliable it will completely shift the balance and give the Allies a huge advantage. We do not need to add another questionable feature to the project and give the fans another thing no one can agree upon, except to say that we suck.


In the Battle of Moscow,it will be interesting to see how historically accurate the , unreliable, underpowered, overheating to the point of combustion, oil spewing Yaks and LaGG's are modeled. Including the the yellow windscreen and canopy "feature".

I hope the Developers " discuss with some members of the community" the next theater . I know they certainly do not owe us this courtesy but it could generate some additional interest, at present this appears to be waning.

I have seriously doubt beacuse 1C wasn't able to made correctly performance and flight models for only a few BOB planes. They all have serious issues. So i really dont expect too much reality from Battle of Moscow planes.