Friday Update, February 17, 2012

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

I see that some people get upset when the devs preview new content that may not be related to there agenda.

Do these same people go to restuarants and complain that the dishwasher is not cooking there food, I can see it now, "why is that guy doing dishes? clearly my soup is more important!?

Wake up folks, different people do different jobs so that guy making cars is not going to fix your FM or graphics engine, but damn, if he makes cool cars for our flight sim, give him credit and dont buzz kill every preview of new content/features.

The devs stopped releasing new content for CoD because people(that dont fly the sim/just the forums) complained.

Well done whiners, you just completed your first objective!

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by majorboris

do these same people go to restuarants and complain that the dishwasher is not cooking there food, i can see it now, "why is that guy doing dishes? Clearly my soup is more important!?

lmao

Originally Posted by ATAG_Bliss

I wouldn't say that. If anyone had paid attention to the updates pre-release or taken one simple look at the controls section of IL2COD, I think it was pretty clear that we'd be driving vehicles (if not more) at some point in development cycle. That is just one aspect of the big picture they are doing. And I think it's phenomenal.

Yeah it not exactly "NEW" news, but I do agree that the basics should be worked on first so this might mean they have it running perfectly

[csThor]

Originally Posted by MajorBoris

I see that some people get upset when the devs preview new content that may not be related to there agenda.

Do these same people go to restuarants and complain that the dishwasher is not cooking there food, I can see it now, "why is that guy doing dishes? clearly my soup is more important!?

Wake up folks, different people do different jobs so that guy making cars is not going to fix your FM or graphics engine, but damn, if he makes cool cars for our flight sim, give him credit and dont buzz kill every preview of new content/features.

The devs stopped releasing new content for CoD because people(that dont fly the sim/just the forums) complained.

Well done whiners, you just completed your first objective!

A general swipe at people not joining into the choir singing glory halleluya isn't particularly smart, either. Ground object modellers could do ground objects, such as the ones I listed, or even - heaven forbid - new models for the planned sequel (since the Eastern Front does need a decent bunch).

Although I have to agree with the notion that this could be a lot less about Maddox Games priorities and a lot more about funny ideas of some 1C-beancounter-suitwearing-humorless-tiehidestheuglysoul-type salesman.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Yes they could Thor, but if you remember, the reason we were told the ships were slacked off on was because of all the people complaining about the 1st additional one they built. So in Luthiers own words "why build anymore" or something similar because of people complaining. Slap the gift horse in the mouth enough times, and they'll slap back.

But hey, lets all complain because we are getting an update with new features. So possible they can stop working on this too. Good call.

[csThor]

But, honestly, is that professional? Not in my book ...

[bongodriver]

it's their product, they can create whatever they want, for those that will reply 'but I paid for a flight sim'.......you got one and more is coming.

[ATAG_Bliss]

Originally Posted by csThor

But, honestly, is that professional? Not in my book ...

So it's more professional to be the loudest complainer who the devs happened to listen to on that particular day? 1st thing about being professional in the customer service department is listening to their customers. Again, enough complaints, they listened alright.

I think it boils down to you'll never make people happy that have an agenda in the 1st place. They are working on everything from FPS, to AI, to FM, to physics, graphics engine, and now even drivable ground units and manable AAA.

I could be wrong, but I think that's some pretty good steps in the right direction.

[bw_wolverine]

I think a lot of people here are failing to define 'basics' and 'priority' properly.

Do some people here consider 100octane fuel Spitfires a 'basic priority'? Yes.

Is it breaking my game? No. I can say with pretty good confidence that the speed of the Spitfire in the game has not caused a crash to desktop.

Do some people consider british naval vessels a 'basic priority'? Sure.

Is it breaking my game? No. I can say with pretty good confidence that I have never needed to call for the H.M.S. Ridiculous to clear my six.

Every time I play the game it is clear that things need to be worked on (the aforementioned fuel, the ships, the whatever). But it is also very clear that none of those required changes are causing me to stop playing the game. It's absolutely enjoyable for me and for many others.

So complaining about additional content in the game really just amounts to "I WANT MY THING FIRST!!!!11", at least that's how all these 'don't work on that, work on this' posts come off. They've likely been working on the drivable vehicles since the game was released considering it was already obviously supposed to be part of the program.

So if you want those ships, or that fuel, or whatever it is you want, I would take the news that this is almost ready as "Yes, we're completing work on this and now we'll be able to get to the next thing in the list which just might be new boats."

[csThor]

It's everyone's right to question the motivation and reasons for spending - apparently spare and priceless - development resources on what is not essential for the flight simulation CloD was advertized as. Simply put a Royal Navy Destroyer is a lot more relevant for a decent representation of the Battle of Britain (think Kanalkampf) than drivable vehicles.

But as I said it's very likely pressure from above to make the engine more versatile to create the potential of selling it to other companies for additional income. As such it's quite normal and perhaps even a boon, although I have my doubts if any such revenues would be used to make the basic engine better and/or create new in-house releases for the Il-2 line.

@ Bliss

What I found unprofessional was the sulking tone when Luthier announced that no further ships would be modeled and especially the reason given. That's diva behavior and not the rational behavior of a businessman.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by csThor

It's everyone's right to question the motivation and reasons for spending - apparently spare and priceless - development resources on what is not essential for the flight simulation CloD was advertized as. Simply put a Royal Navy Destroyer is a lot more relevant for a decent representation of the Battle of Britain (think Kanalkampf) than drivable vehicles.

But as I said it's very likely pressure from above to make the engine more versatile to create the potential of selling it to other companies for additional income. As such it's quite normal and perhaps even a boon, although I have my doubts if any such revenues would be used to make the basic engine better and/or create new in-house releases for the Il-2 line.

@ Bliss

What I found unprofessional was the sulking tone when Luthier announced that no further ships would be modeled and especially the reason given. That's diva behavior and not the rational behavior of a businessman.

If you recall, one reason was Oleg felt this engine would be used by production companies to create documentaries...hence the detail/use on the ground.