So this is the final patch then?

[zapatista]

RC = "Release Candidate", it means that the beta patch is nearly completed and almost good enough to be an official "final patch". it is a "candidate" (eg eligable) for release (soon)

it usually means that most elements they are working on are near finished, and they are confident it is almost ready to be given official status. it is released in this "condition" as a final check to look for some final residual issues and bugs they might not have had extensive enough testing for "in house", so they release it to the public for feedback. big companies with large software programs can go through a series of Release Candidate patches (eg RC1, RC2, RC3 etc..) that they release to their beta testers as they get closer to releasing the final product (microsoft usually does this with their main programs). other smaller software houses might just have a RC1 and maybe RC2, and then produce the final patch/program

looking at the amount of residual problems and some new bugs in the latest beta patch, i'd say they are nowhere near having a final patch ready, and will need a big push focused on dealing with all the major bugs/errors and add some missing features, quiet a big job since luthier indicated his programers might now be able to focus on resolving CoD issues and take a pause from working on BoM, hopefully we will still get that effort

[planespotter]

Wow! What a nightmare. They fix the RAF plane speeds, but you can't start them! They return clouds with shadows, but you get them flying over the clouds too. They make targets easier, to see, but now you can see them through clouds. They break the real Battle of Britain fighters but include a stunt plane with lazers?
And this the nearly final patch is?oh this must be a joke, right? Nice one Ilya!

[baronWastelan]

Well, it does look quite good, for a video game circa 2008 - 2010.

Disclaimer: haven't tried it with the RC patch while sober (afraid to).

[He111]

Not sure if I want to download my easter Egg.

Happy with my old piece of Xmas cake!

.

[Trumper]

If we don't want to buy BOM we should at least have the sim we bought working.
This should NOT be a option where you have to buy product B to get product A working ,that is called blackmail.

[kristorf]

Originally Posted by Trumper

If we don't want to buy BOM we should at least have the sim we bought working.
This should NOT be a option where you have to buy product B to get product A working ,that is called blackmail.

I say it tantamout to theft or deception.

[icarus]

Luthier-

"The situation sucks. I see no reason to sugarcoat it with bull. I don't want to go make empty promises or try to prove that black is white. We released a faulty game. We did more than even seemed possible to fix its faults and add improvements, but in the end it was not enough. There has to come a point where we begin to focus on the future, and Cliffs of Dover just becomes something we can all learn from"

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...553#post465553

[hiro]

yeah it sucks, and they didn't deliver it as promised . . .

but if they can deliver what they promised for the last patch, the game will work (meaning as glitch free as the above average working PC video game). And if they can do that, that's delivering a working product.



As for blackmail, or theft, i'd say no, because anyone following the forums or reading reviews of the game knew what was happening.

And if people tried to install the game and it didn't work as expected, they could return it in the time stated in the purchase policy.

People are responsible for what they purchase. And if they didn't do research or return it within the stated time given, then the fault is on them.

The Devs are responsible for giving us a working / relatively glitch free game. They promise that in the latest patch.



It'd be safe to say that the reputation that IL-2 had clouded many peoples judgement and they figured the US release or subsequent releases would have a working game or patching following and deliver everything that was promised.


You can't fault the devs for losing your money on the game. You had control of your purchase. If you didn't research or return the game in time or bought from a vendor with Nazi policies . . .

You can fault the devs for failing to delivering all the promises.


Also all those features expected, the release being far from those promises (even if the game worked and was relatively glitch free), would be deception.

So we got deceived like a Sith Lord.

But in order for one to deceive, he must have someone willing to believe in that deception. . . it's a two way street.

We have to remember the intention behind it. The Devs didn't deceive us intentionally.

They didn't plan the game to be weaksauce and take our money based on IL-2's reputation.

They sincerely wanted to deliver us a great game. They did plan and take the steps to do so. They took actions on behalf of making something awesome.

However some events came into play, a VIP left, something happened to the game engine along the way. And then they couldn't deliver.

Maybe the VIP didn't leave and get into his own thing, things might have been different. But we cannot go back, nor will speculation fix things.

The intentions still are, and they hope to do better next time.


And then came the communication deal, they didn't have this down pat like some exemplary European or American companies do. But at least they are working the game! Keeping on it, making a sequel that will deliver more promises than the first . . .

And double sour doesn't make things sweet . . .

But we cannot fault the devs 100% on the communication end. They don't owe us that. It's something more of a courtesy or a should. Some people cannot communicate but they have awesome talents nonetheless, and you have to give them some elbow room.

Take the Xmen, they have this awesome leader, and he can read minds or control you or freeze your thoughts (and actions), but he's in a wheel chair. You can't really fault him for requiring an elevator to get 100 flights because he needs a wheel chair or riding on someone's back or holding on nightcrawler's hand.

Just like you can't fully fault a dev 100% if he's got a communication problem and also likes dealing with the action (coding) than with dealing with people.

Despite not communicating as well, from what actions and what's been said, the devs are working on the game (series). And that's better than saying they are working on something but actually aren't.