Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Pilot's Lounge

Pilot's Lounge Members meetup

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:05 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.ed View Post
But note that there is a lot of change in 10 years. 10 years ago CloD would have been a complete revelation, just as the original Il-2 was.
But Luither confirmed thier aproach with sequals has not changed.. Which was the topic at hand

If you want to talk about how software tools, video cards, PC, etc has changed over the past 10 years than you may want to start another thread on the topic? Just a thought.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:43 PM
Force10 Force10 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 371
Default

Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:03 PM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Force10 View Post
Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. Their overall goal seems similar (although the announcement of an MMO throws this into doubt) but the state of the games is completely different.
Indeed, the Russian conflict was relatively new territory for people and thus it's harder to tell if the campaigns are realistic enough. There were also no competitors in this theatre of operations. CloD is different as it has a host of sims as potential competition (even modded Il-2 can take away potential customers). Thus for them to move onto the next one, it would have needed to have cemented a good deal of respect which it hasn't, sadly.
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up!

Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:20 PM
Force10 Force10 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 371
Default

In his "knee jerk reaction" defend at all costs mentality, sometimes Ace just twists the truth into something that doesn't make sense. I really think he should change his avatar to something like this:

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:28 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

It is easy to spot the person that does not have an intellectual argument to address the topic at hand..

Just look for the guy that has to resort to attacking the messenger..

Why?

Because they know they can not attack the message!
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:30 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Force10 View Post
Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong.
Ah I see where you are confused..

Note I did not say the development strategies are the same as IL-2..

It was Luither than said the the development strategies are the same as IL-2, with regards to how they are going to handel sequals

Hope that helps!
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:37 PM
Force10 Force10 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 371
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES View Post
Ah I see where you are confused..

Note I did not say the development strategies are the same as IL-2..

It was Luither than said the the development strategies are the same as IL-2, with regards to how they are going to handel sequals

Hope that helps!
Well then I guess they missed the part where to have a successful sequel, you shouldn't have a first title that is a joke and universally thought of as being short on support, features, and is basically the worst release in a decade. Someone is definitely confused...that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-05-2012, 08:41 PM
ACE-OF-ACES's Avatar
ACE-OF-ACES ACE-OF-ACES is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: NM
Posts: 2,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Force10 View Post
Well then I guess they missed the part where to have a successful sequel, you shouldn't have a first title that is a joke and universally thought of as being short on support, features, and is basically the worst release in a decade. Someone is definitely confused...that's for sure.
Well I know calling it a joke is the thing to do for you and yours..

Which is fine, your welcome to your opinion

All in all I am just glad I was able to help you understand what it was Luither said wrt sequals

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-06-2012, 12:16 AM
Chivas Chivas is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Force10 View Post
Saying the developement strategies between IL-2 and COD are similar are just plain wrong. Less than a year after release, IL-2 had 6 patches and in those patches had added 17 more flyable planes among a host of other fixes and features. COD still hasn't delivered what they said was going to be in the box and have already said there will be no more planes released for it. What about the SU-26 stunt plane they were flogging before release and everyone was going to be able to test the flight model with? You can't compare the 2 for strategies. IL-2 had established a good deal of respect for the devs with the patches, added planes, and other stuff. COD has not given us anything to earn any level of trust or respect that would merit purchasing future products.
The developers basic strategy is almost the same as the original series, except they planned to build tools for modders, and a more robust game engine to use in a number of different ventures. Still the basic strategy was to build a game engine and release a number of new theaters and aircraft based on that game engine. With patches inbetween to fix bugs and maybe add some new content.

This hasn't changed, except for one major setback. The sims game engine wasn't finished and working. This has thrown a major spanner in the works. If the game engine had been working everyone would have been happy and the next sequel would be just around the corner. IF the sim survives this setback you will see a succession of theaters, aircraft, tools for modders, and maybe even an MMO.

The one thing you are right about is the loss of respect by many in the forums, but that can easily be regain IF and When the game engine is fixed. Personally I'd rather they lost a little respect with a chance to regain it, than the cancellation of the sim.
__________________
Intel core I7 950 @ 3.8
Asus PT6 Motherboard
6 gigs OCZ DDR3 1600
Asus GTX580 Direct CU II
60gigSSD with only Windows7 64bit, Hotas Peripherals, and COD running on it
500gig HD Dual Boot
Samsung 32"LG 120hz
MSFF2 Joystick
Cougar Throttle
Saitek Pro Rudder pedals
Voice Activation Controls
Track IR 5 ProClip
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-06-2012, 12:51 AM
philip.ed's Avatar
philip.ed philip.ed is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,766
Default

The strategy is the same, but the situation is different. (As you rightly say, Chivas).
__________________
Luthier: If not for your guys' criticism and incredibly high standards, we'd never have become what we are. Keep it up!

Source for the sceptical: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...11&postcount=9
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.