![]() |
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
By rights any game that ever had a patch was broken to some extent, yes 7 years development obviously wasn't enough time but I guess UBI put the screw down on them to release and the public were getting anxious.
__________________
Intel Q9550 @3.3ghz(OC), Asus rampage extreme MOBO, Nvidia GTX470 1.2Gb Vram, 8Gb DDR3 Ram, Win 7 64bit ultimate edition |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
For those of you doubting the 1 year / aircraft timeframe;
I've been working with FS aircraft for the past 4 years-- and worked with dozens of payware companies. Generally, an aircraft is pushed out in ~3 months, and can easily take up to 4-6. Tubeliners for FS take even longer (systems coding is not easy). Note, that this is with a full dedicated team, working one ONE aircraft-- for an already established sim with well-documented features. However, we have the added advantage of not worrying about; damage models, LoD's, damage states, components, 100% accurate collision boxes, etc, all of which are incredibly important in CloD It is completely reasonable to use at least 6-8 months per aircraft in development then + testing it and making sure it flies according to specs. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Brace yourself to be called a liar or worse.. Why? Because self proclaimed experts who have never done any of this type of work have already spoken and determined that it does not take that long to do. And the only way it could take that long is if 'you' are 1) a liar 2) not managing your team very well 3) stupid 4) all of the above Just a little heads up! But I not being one of those do want to thank you for providing some insite as to how much effort does go into doing what you do! S!
__________________
Theres a reason for instrumenting a plane for test..
That being a pilots's 'perception' of what is going on can be very different from what is 'actually' going on. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Maddox Games is a small company, that's why they need a more pro-active and efficient planning. 7+ years of development and an incomplete product are an unequivocal sign of poor line managing. It's not whining, it's about the freedom of being able to submit constructive criticism to help,cos there are a lot of professionals here that can help,without getting all the hysterical reactions we see here. Proper whiners are everywhere, and you won't change their attitude by being aggressive towards them,just ignore them and let everyone have their say. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
MG needs to define a reasonable amount of development time and work backwards to define the correct amount of complexity in order to come up with a decent schedule. This "seat of the pants" type of development is totally unprofessional and not worthy of a company doing full time work. Creating a full interior/exterior 3D CAD model showing all internal structure should only take 2 people 3 weeks. Where this other months of work is being done the reader can only guess. Trying to say that the developers need factory blueprints of every inch of a ww2 aircraft in order to create an internal/external 3D model shows how over engineered and impossible they have made the task. Factory blueprints are actually notoriously unrelaible and inaccurate..they themselves would have so many updates/revisions that you would have a diffucult time matching the prints to an actual aircraft. The aircraft were produced in batches and there could be a wide variance between batches of the aircraft dimensionally, structurally, etc. This does not even take into account the different factories producing the planes-----US and German planes were bad enough and I can't even imagine the differences in Soviet aircraft. The only way to get "accurate" dimensions of an aircraft would be to physically measure it. The problem with 70 year old aircraft is that they have probably been scrapped together at some point and are actually inaccurate of a typical example. This has come up with examples of aircraft from MG and others making WW2 aircraft models-such as plastic model companies. Sorry just had to vent about these opinions of accuracy of models and time to create them and a lack of time management. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow Soviet aircraft! That will really make Cliffs of Dover a finished game. I guess all the game was missing was the IL-2. . . after all it's in the name. Once we have all these Soviet aircraft then the online campaign in Cliffs of Dover won't suck and we'll be able to play an online mode that isn't 30 people trying to fly as low as they can so they can use that famous "historically correct" tactic of "negative altitude advantage".
Why are people cheering on Battle of Moscow? It gets released, we have another map and some more flyable planes. . . that doesn't make the game we already spend money on fun does it? I bought this game hoping my friends and I could recreate the Battle of Britain online with other like-minded people. All we've got right now is a pathetic dogfight server that feels like the Brits and Germans decided to only fight 30-50 aircraft at a time, within as small a space as possible. Am I taking crazy pills here and don't know it, or should people be asking for the devs to finish what they started instead of making another 1/2 finished game? Will we ever get an online gameplay mode that isn't just about whoever got the best kill to death ratio? Or are the devs at MG happy with their product's single player and multiplayer aspects being "satisfactory" . . . according to 1994 standards? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() I cant play the game at the moment always crashes, but at least the devs are still working on it, I still hold out hope that they will nail the problems down and get the game up to a level of quality that we saw with Il2, its obvious that this is going to take a while, so I just fly ROF while waiting |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
AoA,we're all entitled to our opinions,you always bring things a notch down for some reason.
Luthier hasn't managed things properly and still isn't,that's my personal opinion,which happens to be backed by FACTS,not TALK. I'm not saying he's not gonna fix things,but at this pace this new series will never be complete,like they didn't manage to complete IL-2 in 10 years,because all they cared for was adding more planes and leaving vast parts of the sim incomplete or not to a unified standard. It's sad to see this is happening again with the "new managing",and god knows if I hope they're gonna prove me wrong,cos I really think they're incredibly talented,but lacking a serious strategy or vision. If you can't cope with opinions that differ from yours,maybe it's time yo go out for a breath of fresh air. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Or even better, as once again you appear to be much better in the know then everybody else, start your own Sim company to make us all happy in regards to WW2 Simming.
__________________
Cheers |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I dunno whether you use modded versions of it now,but the guys tha work on it on their free time did wonders with it, applying modifications that are relatively simple but add so much to the game longevity! Oleg & co. delivered an incredible product,but there never was an immersive GUI, FMs were rough and incomplete as well (no flexing airframes,no wake turbulence,approximate ground handling and behaviour to name a few..) and graphics have always been a bit dull. It still managed to be the best combat sim product,but merely because there wasn't much competition in the way. I have a full time job that keeps me busy enough,but I confess I'd like to take on such venture, the only paramount condition is to select the right team,because working on this is a labour of love, and a leader must be able not only to manage,but motivate and provide a view both for his employees and his customers. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|