Friday Update, February 17, 2012

[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.

[BaronBonBaron]

I love the video! Good work guys!!

Being able to drive ground vehicles will open up a whole new world of possibilities!

Just imagine in online multiplayer, baling out of your aircraft, but then finding an abandoned vehicle and continuing the fight on land! EPIC!

[ATAG_MajorBorris]

"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"

@csthor: Unprofessional? maybe but what else do you do when your getting killed on these forums daily, from many people that dont even fly the sim.

The sad part is potential new pilots(maybe the devs too) cant tell the difference between forum flyers and real sim pilots.

[Buchon]

EPIC update, my eyes can´t unseen

Some video stuff remind me Flash Point (the first one off course )

Incredible update, I'm just speechless ...

[StG2_Winni]

Thank you BS and team!!!

I hope the graphic issues will be resolved soon! Looking forward for the update!

Eventuelly we will meet in sky



StG2_Winni

[jg27_mc]

Impressive video regarding ground detail, vehicles etc. I almost forgot this was a flight simulator...

Thank you for the update. Please keep them coming!

[swiss]

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.

Uh -

If I understood Lu' correctly, the project CLOD as an geographical and historical one is done - they moved on.

The said they will fine-tune the engine, and the result will be available for the clod owners as patch (as well).

You can be sure additional planes and decoration (like the "H.M.S. Ridiculous", lol) will eventually find their way into the game series, included in the sequels to come - but not as patch for bob.

That's diva behavior and not the rational behavior of a businessman.

His pov could be something like this:
The community dislikes our ships.
Hm.
Obviously we suck at it - let's move on and focus on something we're better at.

Sure, you could just try to improve, but i think ships are a rather expensive adventure.

[JG53Frankyboy]

let them work on what they want, thats ok.

how it will work out it will be shown when it comes to sell the planned sequel.