Friday Update, January 27, 2012

[Frequent_Flyer]

It appears to me, based upon the constant barrage of noise that follows every update, 1C/Luthier/Black Six have taken the defensive position of managing the expectations of their customers. Very little information is given with no target date(s). This is the low maintanace solution and the most prudent course to take.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Frequent_Flyer

It appears to me, based upon the constant barrage of noise that follows every update, 1C/Luthier/Black Six have taken the defensive position of managing the expectations of their customers. Very little information is given with no target date(s). This is the low maintanace solution and the most prudent course to take.

IMHO the last update contained more information and 'insight' than most updates up to this point..

Sadly the negativity and flat out slanderous replies seemed to follow in kind..

Put another way the more 1C says, just provides more opportunity for people to twist what was said..

Thus based off the responce to this last update I would not be surprised that from this point forward 1C says even less in future updates..

And I wouldn't blaim them one bit

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

So true

[Force10]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

Is anyone else making a new WW2 prop-sim engine: No

This IMO, is part of the problem. Competition is a good thing for customers more often than not. When there is no competition, customers usually get more of a "minimum" effort in a lot of ways because they have fewer options.

[Chivas]

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, The A2A Simulations have left the work to the mod team, have dropped development of sims and have concentrated on making aircraft for FSX. Gaijin is making combatsim light. Studio 777's ROF is barely making enough profit to stay solvent. Its highly doubtful that a major company will come along unless they have a ready built game engine that can easily be converted to a complex WW2 aircombat sim. The only people stupid enough to make these sims are enthusiasts and they are hard to find with the knowledge and cash need to develop one, like Oleg Maddox.

Oleg Maddox didn't run away with the code, he just couldn't get the job done in the time required, and knowing his perfectionism, there is no way he wanted the sim released this unfinished. He either stepped back and gave Luthier the helm or he was forced back, by the investors.

These sims are so complex the setbacks grow exponentially.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

...............................
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.

Originally Posted by Chivas

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.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by klem

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.



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 meant that Microsoft has left the aircombat sim market. I've been following Microsoft Flight and it does sound interesting, but its of little interest to the combat flight sim market. I suppose if the tools are there it could be combat modded, but that never really happened to any of the previous FS sims.

Part of Oleg Maddox original plan was to have the new IL-2 series more accessible to modders and the flight sim market in general. They hoped to take some of the general aviation market. This still appears to be the case if and when they have time to finish and release the SDK and more community tools, ie, the Map making tool. Atleast it shouldn't be to hard to convert from an aircombat sim to general aviation sim if the game engine is capable of providing the necessary feartures.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

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.

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!!

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

.......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. [b]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.[\b]
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, .....

exactemundo !!

that is exactly the type of technical feature many other il2 old timers here are interested in, and it is incomprehensible they havnt given us access to at least some of these new features, even if it was initially with a basic interface at first and (with a list of the new features/options), so we know what is possible to access and control.

remember oleg's AA gun screenshots with the different ammo type boxes next to it ? at that time (some years ago), he indicated that when certain amo type ran out for the gun, it couldnt fire that type anymore (presumably till resupplied). Additionally the complex AA setup, with an interacting multiple component system involving search light, radar, gun crew, and ammo type available, so that if one element failed, or was destroyed by the enemy (like search light or radar element), it made the AA gun emplacement less effective, or put it out of action completely. Now THAT is what I call progress ! and it is what is needed to lift SoW out of the il2 airquake domain.

similarly discussions took place over the years with the SoW devellopers about what should happen when airfield munitions or fuels stores were destroyed (or runways damaged), and the way that should affect performance of that airfield and its ability to refuels and rearm aircraft landing there. once an airfield like that was made non operational, except for still allowing emergency landing of damaged or low on fuel aircraft, [b]it would/should take a certain amount of time for new supplies to arrive [/b (which is possible to copy fairly exactly from historical events, in the same way that restoring a damaged landing strip can determined).

AND those supplies had to arrive by road or rail normally (only very few came by air except some exceptional circumstances, like Stalingrad or Berlin). this again can be simulated fairly accurately, by having AI truck convoys of a particular size traveling at regular intervals on the road system from point A to point B, and having similar rail supply trains. targeting those in the game would then block the supplies from arriving at destination (for the time you keep being able to find and destroy them) when means the airfield they are designed for stays out of action or only operates partially. additionally, in certain map situations you might be able to cut rail and road bridges, or other parts of the transport network, with a similar result (again having work teams rebuilding those at a given time rate, and unless you keep destroying them regularly they become operational again). as a reminder, Mig Alley, the Korean war sim from 10 years ago already had a significant amount of those features built in, and it was one of the main reasons it stood out from other sims of the same era.

from oleg we know a lot of this, and even significantly more, is built into BoB/SoW, to not have some type of interface for it and no documentation for it is incomprehensible and a major flaw in 1C’s and luthiers management approach. it would set the sim apart from many other products right now, and it would make current users/customers much more tolerant of some of the major flaws they have to put up within the last year (and yes we are happy the project wasn’t canned, and if the buggy release was the only alternative to survival of the series let it be so)

this same AI interface should also provide details on how to control AI activity from road vehicles, rail network, and shipping (including AI bomber and fighter formations being tasked from point A to attack point B etc). ie rather then have some random train travel from A to B as me have now (or having a few people try and edit ini files with a hit and miss approach), we know this can/could be configured by some dedicated mission/campaign interface giving access in great detail for road/rail/sea/air elements active on a map. to have some basic instructions and information on these type of features is essential to keep the frustrated and shrinking fan base interested.

since most of those features are already built in, imo it should only take one or 2 programmers a couple of weeks to provide the documentation and a basic interface for it (even if some of those features are incomplete at this stage, many of them should already be available)

imo for luthier priorities right now should be
1) finish rebuild of gfx engine to get required gameplay performance and improved visual look of environment (he is doing this, but only 1 or 2 programmers are working on it i b suspect)
2) fix major FM DM problems that are know to be an isue right now, and fix distant object visibility problem (for aircraft and ground objects)
3) provide information and means to control ground/rail/airfield/aircraft resources, with implementation of some of these complex "roll on" effects once one element or important object of an airfield or other part of the map (like bridge or railway line) is damaged. Additionally, allow for basic AI routines to be created for vehicles on roads and at airfields, so the maps start to come alive. similarly allow scripting of ground military vehicle actions, eg have vehicle types ABC move to objective XYZ while having predetermined interaction modes with "object" they encounter (engage enemy, avoid enemy, capture objective etc)
4) correct some major scenery errors, and make england look like england rather then some generic map
5) provide full dynamic campaign engine for 24/7 online/ofline gameplay (with partially scripted unfolding events, as we know was olegs choice), so some of the events that historically made BoB so unique can be recreated, having for ex multiple waves of large bomber formations targeting specific objectives etc
only after that can there be talk of doing anything for BoM (other then maybe having some unemployed modelers work on some new objects if there is nothing else for them to do right now).

the only thing CoD is good for right now, is a limited type of airquake in a very buggy gameplay setting, while trying to move around in a virual world in an underperforming gfx engine, its a far cry from what was intended or anticipated, so they need to fix some of these issues SOON !