Friday Update, January 27, 2012

Originally Posted by csThor

Sternjaeger you grossly underestimate the amount of research neccessary to create a model as shown in the screenshots (with all the interior parts, wing ribs etc). For that stuff you need solid data and not just any cr@p a google search finds you. That stuff requires something better than a few thrown-together TGA schemes ... On top of that you need original manuals to study and understand the various systems of the type, manuals which often are either unavailable at all, only partially available or not available in the language you need them (remember the development team speaks native russian, not german or english). I remember Dietger and Jippo spent one and a half years only on collecting the necessary manuals to begin modelling the Ju 88 back in 1946. And, let's be honest, the 1946 Ju 88 is a much less sophisticated model than the CloD one.

and how many years 1C had for CLOD? Oh we have all the main planes from the BOB but we dont have a working (without major slowdowns when effects are near) game engine...oh nooo!!!!!

Im not whining...Im angry....with right...thats all...get over it...

see you in a year..or maybe sooner...who knows...Luthier will promise something im sure...sometimes...so you can all get wet (for some reason)
goodbye

[csThor]

Harping on about it won't change anything, either, Tvrdi. I just replied to Sternjaeger and his - IMO - grossly optimistic development timeframe estimation. I didn't say anything about previous development or what MG does.

[Strike]

Originally Posted by Tvrdi

Im not whining...Im angry....with right...thats all...get over it...

see you in a year..

I dare you to disappear until 27.01.2012

Otherwise, this bashing between RoF and CloD isn't getting us anywhere. If cluttering up the internet with hate-spam is your main goal in life, the joke is on you. I play both sims, I have my own reasons for preferring bits and pieces of both of them. If I could have it my way, I would combine the best of RoF and CloD's game engines, but that would probably be a game set for release around the time where Skynet's robots are erasing humans from the planet.

If you ask me personally, my opinion is that Luthier is right about one very essential thing. When they set off with this goal "make 2nd Gen IL-2 series BETTER than first" they chewed over A LOT more than they could swallow.

What it is is really like comparing a 18th century cannon towards a M109 Howitzer. Imagine the issues you could have with a cannon= Fuse wet, wrong amount of gunpowder, wheel falls off cannon rig etc... Then imagine a M109... think of the million pieces of hardware and software tied together in a very finely tuned engineering masterpiece. What we have is CloD.. aka the M109 that - unfortunately - was not finely tuned at release. So now what? Well the gun fires, it can drive around but every now and then the turret hangs up and the thing breaks down. Annoying as "F" and you probably wished you had a damn 18th century cannon instead But the point is here, the devs have to take into account a system so vast, any small tweak may have a large impact in the end of the coding string. A simple parameter in the JU87 AI divebomb routine config, may render all other aircraft with bombs to commit CFIT suicide. And now you have to write new code, that may effect other elements of the game in a negative behaviour, so you need to open a whole set of branches in a huge coding-tree only to implement a simple alteration of an AI tactic.

Again, to step away from this wall of text, I feel that Luthier set the bar too high. Hence temporary(?) removal of advanced weather features, animations, atmosphere etc etc. As the project moved along, things must only have become more and more difficult. Making all parts of this game engine communicate and cooperate properly is a huge undertaking. It's miles ahead of anything else on the market when it comes to damage modeling. The potential that lies in the game engine to introduce player controlled ground/air/sea vehicles is also a strong competative factor one should consider. It could potentially lure tank-warfare/naval-warfare enthusiasts into the genre some day.

But what about us? All the waiting? What about our satisfaction? The bang for our bucks?

Well mate, it's all up to YOU! Nobody can tell you how you are supposed to react when playing this sim. It's all up to your expectations and needs. It's wether IL-2 CloD hits you on all the right spots, or completely strokes you against your hairs that will help you judge the game.

I can only speak for myself when I say that when I fly my trusty spit over the french coast I get excited only by the fact that some german AA gun may target me, and the damage I potentially can receive could do anything really, but based on the accurate calculations of bullet velocity, ammunition type, impact angle, shrapnel, material strength, penetration, structural consequences, component damage etc etc. It's thrilling to know all of this stuff is being calculated as the sim plays out, and no outcome is identical.

What I miss is working launcher.exe during MP, more varied and indepth sound, better AI, campaign etc.. But as long as they claim they are working on this, I can wait a few months. What I have now gives me the kicks I need - a.k.a the good outweigh/balance the bad.

As for RoF, it's the wrong forum to be discussing, but I didn't play it until a year after I bought it I was so disappointed. 5 flyables or something like that, loads of bugs and unoptimized content, menus etc.. As for now, I enjoy it, but more in the essence of how I think of BF3 and ARMAII. I play BF3 for hours and hours for a great action game, with even balancing and 15 second respawn. But I play ARMA II for the more "hardcore" game, which happens to have bogged physics etc, but gives me a LOT greater feeling of "acheiving" something. RoF is like an online deathmatch frenzy, all planes are so balanced, but you always get shot down by a turning camel or Dr.1 . 'Special damage' seems utterly random (fuel leak, oil leak, ammo explosion, fire) and wing damage is just climbing %. The higher the % damage is the easier it breaks off. For me, I feel nothing special when gunning at planes in RoF. It's like ok theres a 50% chance the wings come off, there's a 25% chance the engine catches fire and a 25% chance the pilot dies. All the trailer videos showcasing advanced engine models etc feels like a marketing stunt to me. In CloD at least my individual cylinders can misfire! But Rise of Flight has been more immersive due to some cool effects such as the dynamic wind, rain/blood spatter, sound etc. But then again it all feels so built up around core elements such as "pretty art-like graphics" and balanced flight models.

So you can basically ignore my opinion on CloD and RoF and have your own, but bashing them back and forth in a thread for discussing the upcoming expansion and promised friday updates is just rude. I totally welcome and promote constructive feedback, but this is NOT the place for waging forum warfare and CERTAINLY NOT the place for addressing problems with RoF :p It could be an own thread in the pilots lounge: "IL-2 CloD - RoF: Comparisons".

I would like it to be made common knowledge just exactly how complicated this simulator actually is, what's being taken into account, what's being rendered and then perhaps everyone would understand the amount of time and work is required to actually "fix" something. Too many people claim that "Oh well fixing this should be easy". Well there it is^^ In the update stated by the boss himself. It is almost NEVER easy - be sure.

As for the update? I base my expectations on the previous update records, and sooner or later, we're all bound to be positively surprised aren't we?

I've bought the game, there's nothing I can do about it now whether I like it or not, besides whining about it, or doing something more productive*. Do like Chuck Norris, choose the latter.


*(there's a huge list of productive stuff to do, pm me if you need advice)


Thanks for the update Luthier, I'll bee seeing your update next week Be sure

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by Strike

I dare you to disappear until 27.01.2012

Otherwise, this bashing between RoF and CloD isn't getting us anywhere. If cluttering up the internet with hate-spam is your main goal in life, the joke is on you. I play both sims, I have my own reasons for preferring bits and pieces of both of them. If I could have it my way, I would combine the best of RoF and CloD's game engines, but that would probably be a game set for release around the time where Skynet's robots are erasing humans from the planet.

If you ask me personally, my opinion is that Luthier is right about one very essential thing. When they set off with this goal "make 2nd Gen IL-2 series BETTER than first" they chewed over A LOT more than they could swallow.

What it is is really like comparing a 18th century cannon towards a M109 Howitzer. Imagine the issues you could have with a cannon= Fuse wet, wrong amount of gunpowder, wheel falls off cannon rig etc... Then imagine a M109... think of the million pieces of hardware and software tied together in a very finely tuned engineering masterpiece. What we have is CloD.. aka the M109 that - unfortunately - was not finely tuned at release. So now what? Well the gun fires, it can drive around but every now and then the turret hangs up and the thing breaks down. Annoying as "F" and you probably wished you had a damn 18th century cannon instead But the point is here, the devs have to take into account a system so vast, any small tweak may have a large impact in the end of the coding string. A simple parameter in the JU87 AI divebomb routine config, may render all other aircraft with bombs to commit CFIT suicide. And now you have to write new code, that may effect other elements of the game in a negative behaviour, so you need to open a whole set of branches in a huge coding-tree only to implement a simple alteration of an AI tactic.

Again, to step away from this wall of text, I feel that Luthier set the bar too high. Hence temporary(?) removal of advanced weather features, animations, atmosphere etc etc. As the project moved along, things must only have become more and more difficult. Making all parts of this game engine communicate and cooperate properly is a huge undertaking. It's miles ahead of anything else on the market when it comes to damage modeling. The potential that lies in the game engine to introduce player controlled ground/air/sea vehicles is also a strong competative factor one should consider. It could potentially lure tank-warfare/naval-warfare enthusiasts into the genre some day.

But what about us? All the waiting? What about our satisfaction? The bang for our bucks?

Well mate, it's all up to YOU! Nobody can tell you how you are supposed to react when playing this sim. It's all up to your expectations and needs. It's wether IL-2 CloD hits you on all the right spots, or completely strokes you against your hairs that will help you judge the game.

I can only speak for myself when I say that when I fly my trusty spit over the french coast I get excited only by the fact that some german AA gun may target me, and the damage I potentially can receive could do anything really, but based on the accurate calculations of bullet velocity, ammunition type, impact angle, shrapnel, material strength, penetration, structural consequences, component damage etc etc. It's thrilling to know all of this stuff is being calculated as the sim plays out, and no outcome is identical.

What I miss is working launcher.exe during MP, more varied and indepth sound, better AI, campaign etc.. But as long as they claim they are working on this, I can wait a few months. What I have now gives me the kicks I need - a.k.a the good outweigh/balance the bad.

As for RoF, it's the wrong forum to be discussing, but I didn't play it until a year after I bought it I was so disappointed. 5 flyables or something like that, loads of bugs and unoptimized content, menus etc.. As for now, I enjoy it, but more in the essence of how I think of BF3 and ARMAII. I play BF3 for hours and hours for a great action game, with even balancing and 15 second respawn. But I play ARMA II for the more "hardcore" game, which happens to have bogged physics etc, but gives me a LOT greater feeling of "acheiving" something. RoF is like an online deathmatch frenzy, all planes are so balanced, but you always get shot down by a turning camel or Dr.1 . 'Special damage' seems utterly random (fuel leak, oil leak, ammo explosion, fire) and wing damage is just climbing %. The higher the % damage is the easier it breaks off. For me, I feel nothing special when gunning at planes in RoF. It's like ok theres a 50% chance the wings come off, there's a 25% chance the engine catches fire and a 25% chance the pilot dies. All the trailer videos showcasing advanced engine models etc feels like a marketing stunt to me. In CloD at least my individual cylinders can misfire! But Rise of Flight has been more immersive due to some cool effects such as the dynamic wind, rain/blood spatter, sound etc. But then again it all feels so built up around core elements such as "pretty art-like graphics" and balanced flight models.

So you can basically ignore my opinion on CloD and RoF and have your own, but bashing them back and forth in a thread for discussing the upcoming expansion and promised friday updates is just rude. I totally welcome and promote constructive feedback, but this is NOT the place for waging forum warfare and CERTAINLY NOT the place for addressing problems with RoF :p It could be an own thread in the pilots lounge: "IL-2 CloD - RoF: Comparisons".

I would like it to be made common knowledge just exactly how complicated this simulator actually is, what's being taken into account, what's being rendered and then perhaps everyone would understand the amount of time and work is required to actually "fix" something. Too many people claim that "Oh well fixing this should be easy". Well there it is^^ In the update stated by the boss himself. It is almost NEVER easy - be sure.

As for the update? I base my expectations on the previous update records, and sooner or later, we're all bound to be positively surprised aren't we?

I've bought the game, there's nothing I can do about it now whether I like it or not, besides whining about it, or doing something more productive*. Do like Chuck Norris, choose the latter.


*(there's a huge list of productive stuff to do, pm me if you need advice)


Thanks for the update Luthier, I'll bee seeing your update next week Be sure

Best post yet, thought you were Blackdog for a second then (wall of text and eloquent) not like your normal posts...

I kid good job.

[Strike]

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi

Best post yet, thought you were Blackdog for a second

Best accidental compliment of the year mate

[Bewolf]

Originally Posted by Strike

I dare you to disappear until 27.01.2012

Otherwise, this bashing between RoF and CloD isn't getting us anywhere. If cluttering up the internet with hate-spam is your main goal in life, the joke is on you. I play both sims, I have my own reasons for preferring bits and pieces of both of them. If I could have it my way, I would combine the best of RoF and CloD's game engines, but that would probably be a game set for release around the time where Skynet's robots are erasing humans from the planet.

If you ask me personally, my opinion is that Luthier is right about one very essential thing. When they set off with this goal "make 2nd Gen IL-2 series BETTER than first" they chewed over A LOT more than they could swallow.

What it is is really like comparing a 18th century cannon towards a M109 Howitzer. Imagine the issues you could have with a cannon= Fuse wet, wrong amount of gunpowder, wheel falls off cannon rig etc... Then imagine a M109... think of the million pieces of hardware and software tied together in a very finely tuned engineering masterpiece. What we have is CloD.. aka the M109 that - unfortunately - was not finely tuned at release. So now what? Well the gun fires, it can drive around but every now and then the turret hangs up and the thing breaks down. Annoying as "F" and you probably wished you had a damn 18th century cannon instead But the point is here, the devs have to take into account a system so vast, any small tweak may have a large impact in the end of the coding string. A simple parameter in the JU87 AI divebomb routine config, may render all other aircraft with bombs to commit CFIT suicide. And now you have to write new code, that may effect other elements of the game in a negative behaviour, so you need to open a whole set of branches in a huge coding-tree only to implement a simple alteration of an AI tactic.

Again, to step away from this wall of text, I feel that Luthier set the bar too high. Hence temporary(?) removal of advanced weather features, animations, atmosphere etc etc. As the project moved along, things must only have become more and more difficult. Making all parts of this game engine communicate and cooperate properly is a huge undertaking. It's miles ahead of anything else on the market when it comes to damage modeling. The potential that lies in the game engine to introduce player controlled ground/air/sea vehicles is also a strong competative factor one should consider. It could potentially lure tank-warfare/naval-warfare enthusiasts into the genre some day.

But what about us? All the waiting? What about our satisfaction? The bang for our bucks?

Well mate, it's all up to YOU! Nobody can tell you how you are supposed to react when playing this sim. It's all up to your expectations and needs. It's wether IL-2 CloD hits you on all the right spots, or completely strokes you against your hairs that will help you judge the game.

I can only speak for myself when I say that when I fly my trusty spit over the french coast I get excited only by the fact that some german AA gun may target me, and the damage I potentially can receive could do anything really, but based on the accurate calculations of bullet velocity, ammunition type, impact angle, shrapnel, material strength, penetration, structural consequences, component damage etc etc. It's thrilling to know all of this stuff is being calculated as the sim plays out, and no outcome is identical.

What I miss is working launcher.exe during MP, more varied and indepth sound, better AI, campaign etc.. But as long as they claim they are working on this, I can wait a few months. What I have now gives me the kicks I need - a.k.a the good outweigh/balance the bad.

As for RoF, it's the wrong forum to be discussing, but I didn't play it until a year after I bought it I was so disappointed. 5 flyables or something like that, loads of bugs and unoptimized content, menus etc.. As for now, I enjoy it, but more in the essence of how I think of BF3 and ARMAII. I play BF3 for hours and hours for a great action game, with even balancing and 15 second respawn. But I play ARMA II for the more "hardcore" game, which happens to have bogged physics etc, but gives me a LOT greater feeling of "acheiving" something. RoF is like an online deathmatch frenzy, all planes are so balanced, but you always get shot down by a turning camel or Dr.1 . 'Special damage' seems utterly random (fuel leak, oil leak, ammo explosion, fire) and wing damage is just climbing %. The higher the % damage is the easier it breaks off. For me, I feel nothing special when gunning at planes in RoF. It's like ok theres a 50% chance the wings come off, there's a 25% chance the engine catches fire and a 25% chance the pilot dies. All the trailer videos showcasing advanced engine models etc feels like a marketing stunt to me. In CloD at least my individual cylinders can misfire! But Rise of Flight has been more immersive due to some cool effects such as the dynamic wind, rain/blood spatter, sound etc. But then again it all feels so built up around core elements such as "pretty art-like graphics" and balanced flight models.

So you can basically ignore my opinion on CloD and RoF and have your own, but bashing them back and forth in a thread for discussing the upcoming expansion and promised friday updates is just rude. I totally welcome and promote constructive feedback, but this is NOT the place for waging forum warfare and CERTAINLY NOT the place for addressing problems with RoF :p It could be an own thread in the pilots lounge: "IL-2 CloD - RoF: Comparisons".

I would like it to be made common knowledge just exactly how complicated this simulator actually is, what's being taken into account, what's being rendered and then perhaps everyone would understand the amount of time and work is required to actually "fix" something. Too many people claim that "Oh well fixing this should be easy". Well there it is^^ In the update stated by the boss himself. It is almost NEVER easy - be sure.

As for the update? I base my expectations on the previous update records, and sooner or later, we're all bound to be positively surprised aren't we?

I've bought the game, there's nothing I can do about it now whether I like it or not, besides whining about it, or doing something more productive*. Do like Chuck Norris, choose the latter.


*(there's a huge list of productive stuff to do, pm me if you need advice)


Thanks for the update Luthier, I'll bee seeing your update next week Be sure

+1
That's it in a...well, coconut shell

[kestrel79]

The I-16 is looking great! Thanks for the update. Let it be known that the majority of people are patient and appreciate the updates, but we are less vocal.

I think the devs are going to be pretty tight lipped about any new gameplay features from now on, there's a lot of flight sim competition right now. World of Planes just got a new website and reveiled their plans, DCS is doing a P-51, then you have microsoft flight and RoF too.

Let's all get back on topic and talk about that I-16! No one has barely mentioned it! It looks great. Those skis look really cool. Always loved snow landings in IL2. I think the model looks very sharp. No other sims really model the internal structure and engine parts like we are getting here, I think that explains for the extra time they take to create compared to other sims.

[csThor]

Some people behave as if the state of Clod got them thrown out of their house/apartment, their car confiscated, their wife/girlfriend lost to some gigolo and a layoff at their job. And all of the drama for a mere computer game? (and people sometimes accuse me of having no life)

[csThor]

The issue is that people harp on about it, whenever appropriate and especially when not. I, for example, am not particularly happy with the state of things but I have better things to do than spend my time throwing tantrums on message boards. Simply put I shelved the game for the time being and don't expect any "enjoyment" for the forseeable future. I have other hobbies I can waste my freetime on and I don't really understand where the need to throw a tantrum on what is essentially a 50€ piece of software.

[Tickl3]

Originally Posted by csThor

The issue is that people harp on about it, whenever appropriate and especially when not. I, for example, am not particularly happy with the state of things but I have better things to do than spend my time throwing tantrums on message boards. Simply put I shelved the game for the time being and don't expect any "enjoyment" for the forseeable future. I have other hobbies I can waste my freetime on and I don't really understand where the need to throw a tantrum on what is essentially a 50€ piece of software.

Voicing an opinion is not throwing a tantrum.
And spending 2 minutes posting on a thread hardly means that someone has no hobbies or life outside of those 2 minutes. Interesting opinion.
I too shelved the game but the thing thats frustrating is that they have basically dropped it, without finishing it. Thats what has annoyed a lot of people.
Oh and dont forget that £40 may not be a lot to you but it is to others.