Hardware, software and the future of flight combat sims.

[SlipBall]

^
Really an unfortunate state of affairs...I wonder if we could ever get something going with 1C again and the SOW engine

[flyingblind]

What I am saying is that the glass ceiling for developing sims and complex games is no longer the hardware limitations but the cost of coding the software. Gamers cough if they pay more than £50 for a game whereas professional graphics packages cost £1000, a MIS system £20 or £30 grand and a bespoke database system for the police or the NHS a few £million with no guarantee it will work. Ok there are many more gamers willing to buy a game and only one NHS to pay for its own software but the amount of coding and the costs involved are probably not that different. If more gamers move to consoles because that is where they are happy as they cannot be bothered with complex PC based sims or the expense of hardware then the financial base contracts further shifting the centre of balance untile it all capsizes.

Is this all inevitable? One thing I wondered was if a development company or a consortium of software and even hardware companies could get together and produce a universal standardise game engine that was adaptable enough to provide the evironment for a whole range of games and be more future proof and expandable to meet hardware advances.

This would spread the cost of the underlying effects and physics of the game over many more units leaving the game designers to concentrate on the 3D modeling, and game play of their offerings.

Being standardised it would also mean 3rd parties could concentrate on producing more specialised stuff like a wider variaty of trees or buildings etc. and know that they could be used in any game using the engine as simple plugins.

The same engine could be used for flight sims of any era or epic motor races such as the Milli Miglia or Paris to Dakar Rally etc.

Would this ever be feasable or even desirable. I don't know.

[kendo65]

Zapa, you are refusing to acknowledge that a key reason for COD's difficulties was that the developers over-reached themselves by being unrealistic (with hindsight, verging on reckless) about what exactly a development team of their size would be able to implement in the time available.

When the various features for COD were being trailed several years ago I was as excited about them as anyone. With the experience and results achieved in il-2 I had no doubt that they would succeed.

The scale of the ambition was breathtaking both then and now. But obviously things didn't go to plan even well before the release. Stories of staff being dismissed, the switch mid-stream from OpenGL to Direct X, Oleg quitting (or being removed?). Each one of those would have caused disruption and slowed down development.

But, it seems inescapable to conclude (again, with hindsight) that perhaps the key reason was because the scope of the project was just too ambitious. Partly that was down to the number of cutting edge features that were being built into the engine, but part was also down to poor management and planning (e.g. the decision to devote so much effort to a full set of detailed ground vehicles [superfluous in a BOB scenario - could surely have been delayed until sequel], non-essential aircraft (ME-108, Sunderland - even the Tiger Moth and the training aspect could have been left out at least initally with little detriment)).

When they were forced to release the game unfinished (after several years of development time and investment), many of the basics were not in place - a lashed together, clunky GUI being the most glaring example.

The game was released to a storm of disappointment and criticism, some of it over the top and unfair, but much of it was understandable and unavoidable given the state of the game.

The state of the game at release can only be understood as a direct consequence of earlier design and development decisions. They over-reached themselves and then didn't make the difficult decision of scaling back the ambition until it became apparent that there was no way they were going to get everything ready in time. Then there was a panicked stepping on the brakes and several features (dynamic weather, campaign) had to be postponed.

Complaining now that 777 are not going to go down the same route strikes me as a wilful refusal to face facts and learn the hard lessons that are all too obvious from the COD saga.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Zapa, you are refusing to acknowledge that a key reason for COD's difficulties was that the developers over-reached themselves by being unrealistic (with hindsight, verging on reckless) about what exactly a development team of their size would be able to implement in the time available.
...........................
The state of the game at release can only be understood as a direct consequence of earlier design and development decisions.

err, emmm, well,....

NOPE !!

as in the previous il2 series, oleg used a modular concept during development, where each main component was developed separately by a different team. it is only when in the last phase of the project all the parts were being assembled that the performance problem of the gfx engine showed insurmountable problems that they couldnt fix in time for the release

the main thing we can blame oleg for in that regard is that he wasnt in the office supervising 24/7 as he had been in the previous series, and he should under normal circumstances have spotted that issue much earlier on

since the gfx engine is the main element that all the other parts are tagged onto, it not being fixed became a major issue for the whole game, and yes they then started slshing and cutting various elements that loaded the gpu and cpu, but as you well rember that didnt fix it. in the end it needed a full gfx engine rebuild (which did fix it)

Originally Posted by kendo65

Complaining now that 777 are not going to go down the same route strikes me as a willful refusal to face facts and learn the hard lessons that are all too obvious from the COD saga.

BoS is not on a different route to the same destination at all, its on a different continent and driving on the other side of the road to a completely different destination

i find it rather funny that people, including you by the looks of your latest comment, keep somehow believing this new RoF venture is going to produce the holy grail of il2sturmovik we have all been waiting for the last 5 yrs, and it just aint so folks. its not aiming to be, and it cant by its very design limitations. think re skinned RoF with ww2 aircraft instead

[Davy TASB]

Originally Posted by zapatista

[B]

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support").

.

Timidly said indeedy... .

By the way, I didn't say that "I dont want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because I kept being told constantly it needed support", I said I was willing to spend that amount of money on a WW1 sim as it was my preferred theatre of war and that I probably wouldn't be spending daft money on BoS because I can take or leave the Russian air war scenario.
I also said that you dont realise how much money you do spend seeing as you spend it in dribs and drabs and that you dont miss it.
(Jason DOES keep using the support the sim or we die though and he will probably keep doing it) That said, I bought RoF and the payware because I wanted to, not because I was told ROF needed support so yer talking out if your rear end saying otherwise.

I aint a hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums either and I certainly dont hate CloD by in any shape or form. I'm slightly disappointed with some aspects of it (who isn't) but quite enjoy it overall.
Been playing the IL2 series since its conception. I just dont bother posting much in forums, ANY of 'em.
I'm a very sporadic poster me.

Have a nice day.
Love from Mr Timid

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by zapatista

that is a twist on reality that the sales pitch wants you to believe, reality is somewhat different. from its very inception BoS is simply not capable to come anywhere close to the realism of CoD in simulating realistic flight models, or use highly detailed scenery and objects, neither does it allow for a high multpilayer count with a high AI activity figure. and the current designers have said as much themselves. the BoS ground scenery will again be sterile and empty, and be devoid of any activity

what they will do is sell you a reskinned RoF (same engine, same design team) with a few ww2 aircraft, and from then on you'll be expected to pay another 20 to 50$ per months for further aircraft and newer object, and if you dont hop on that jason-gravy-train you'll be told "you just dont want flightsims to succeed", while he orders his next lexus

when you compare the expectations for BoS with the current CoD, BoS looses out on just about every point in a direct comparison

that doesnt mean people shouldnt buy it, up to them to do with their money what they want (like the hesitant RoF customer visiting these forums recently who timidly said "he wasnt sure he'd want to spend another 500$ buying lots of addons for their next sim again just because he kept being told constantly it needed "support"). if you look at the product RoF is designing now for BoS, be ready to be disappointed if you think it will be anywhere near CoD/il2 in performance or ability, using the il2sturmovik name is just a re-branding from the 1C company who funds its development, its not a content description.

RoF current sales blurbs are deliberately pitching their next products ability and performance very low, because, well, it will be low compared to CoD, and they dont want to get sucked into not delivering on high promises which they know from the start they wont be able to meet. it will be pretty, it will have ww2 planes, people can play airquake and !S each other on forums and pretend to be the red baron, but it wont be il2 as we know it, or would expect it

.

Did anybody say that BOS will be anything like CLOD in performance or ability?

CLOD was released underdeveloped, after lots of promises by developers who blew their budget and, into the bargain, garnered a bad public reputation which it has never truly shaken off. Sure, it is playable but still so underdeveloped compared to its potential and, until someone commits finance time and patience into a program of proper engine development it's going to stay a dead-end. What's so good about any of that? It's all too easy to complain about the state of game play, but gamers who demand everything be bigger and better and more complex at every step are just as responsible as anyone for what has happened.

The fact is that CLOD, and other over-ambitious games, have ruined it for everybody - no-one wins. Love it or hate it we are stuck with a conservative, back to the roots flight sim which will at least be fully developed, all fingers xed. As for the comments about twist reality and on sales pitches etc? Of course it's a sales pitch, but at least there's some honesty there.