![]() |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This thread has been derailed, but I was under the impression we were discussing the future as a whole.
__________________
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 |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
In that new 'things' were added that did not exist in the original IL-2.. So even that analogy of yours does not apply But keep digging I am sure you will find something! But in doing so you will miss the whole point! That being Luither said 1C's method of providing new features is to re-package the game into a new version (sequel) that includes the previous version of the game while adding new content (planes, maps, features, mission making tools, graphics card support, etc) As in that is how they did it with IL-2 and that is how they plan on doing it with CoD Where as other flight sims do it in different ways.. Some like warbirds charge monthly fees, and flight sims like RoF charge you for individual addons (planes, maps, scarf, etc) At least that was the 'plan' at the time Luiter said it! Should a large asteroid hit the earth next week I am sure the plan will have to change.. At which point you can rest assured that there will be a hand full of whiners floating in space complaining that the 1C plan for CoD never transpired as originally intended!
__________________
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. Last edited by ACE-OF-ACES; 06-05-2012 at 10:34 PM. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
You miss the point
![]() Forgotten Battles added to the Russian Front and gave it so much more substance. It improved a game that had already received glowing feedback. This isn't happening with CloD. Moscow is not Britain or France. The point I am making is that for the forseeable future, the Battle of Britain has been abandoned by the dev team. If they were expanding the game to include the BoF and the later Rhubarbs and Circus's, I would agree with everything you are posting in an attempt to prove my posts wrong. The point I am making is that on relative terms, the future of CloD is only following the same lines as Il-2, but it's not being done identically. If it was identical the next expansion would be in the same theatre of operations, and the team would ensure that theatre actually had some meat. So keep weasling your way around. You might actually post something that can weigh up to my facts.
__________________
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 |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Hardly.. see following where I prove it
Quote:
So let me get this straight.. Your saying no sequal to CoD has been produced yet? DUH! But when 1C does produce a sequal, in this case the Russian Front, it will surly add more substance (planes, maps, features, updates, etc) That is the point your missing, that you thought I missed But keep digging! I am here with a rope ready to pull you back into reality!
__________________
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. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am talking about substance to the Battle of Britain! What part don't you understand? Of course BoM is the sequel and will add more substance to the series. But it will add nothing to the Battle of Britain. Do I have to repeat myself again? Stop making yourself look stupid. Cliffs of Dover is the Battle of Britain, Battle of Moscow is the Russian Front. The point I, and others, have been making is that the BoB aspect is being abandoned. No more campaigns, improved voice-packs or anything to improve it.
__________________
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 |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
You don't know that!
The Brit's sold Spits to the USSR so chances are a new version of the Spit might be added in the Russian addon (figers crossed it is a 100 oct version) that could be used in a BoB mission But one thing is for sure each and every sequal adds more to the BASELINE of the game engine.. So if not this sequal than the next may add something that can be used in a BoB campain! For example, IL-2 Pacific Fighters added the PACIFIC! But at the same time it added Britt versions of the F4, F6 and F4u that could be used to simulate the usage of such planes in Brit carrier euro missions What is so hard to understand about this?
__________________
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. |
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
So we have a Spitfire 1B missing from the game. Were these used in the Russian front? Not that I'm aware of.
I can't think of any other spits that have been omitted, nor aircraft in CloD which could be used in Russia which will benefit my experience. A Hampden, a flyable Defiant etc would be gold. But not for the foreseeable future. My point is that CloD itself is not exactly finished from an offline perspective. I want to the game to expand in as many avenues as possible, but BoM would most likely sell a lot better if CloD was finished first and had the credibility to show that the next game would be just as good. The case at hand is that we're hoping BoM won't be just as bad. Note that in all my previous posts I have said time and time again that it's good the sim expands in this way. As you suggest it adds a lot to the previous titles. But currently there is no proof that anything useful will be added to CloD to benefit it. Hence why it has been abandoned. If the next expansion was in the same theatre, it would allow them to add directly to it. Now that's why the SDK could be so useful. Third parties might emerge to do the job many of us wish the team had done before. Phew that took a long time to get across (and I've reworded this post about ten times now). @Kendo. didn't see your post mate, but you're exactly right.
__________________
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 |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
But how many rabbits will you have to kill to turn into tokens to upgrade to the new epic Spitfires?
__________________
i7-920 @ 4.1Ghz Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R 12 GB DDR3 1600 RAM GTX 560Ti with 2GB (latest beta driver) 22" monitor @ 1680x1050 TrackIR 5 Saitek X52 Saitek pedals Win7 64-bit Ultimate "Ignorance speaks loudly, so as to be heard; but its volume proves reason to doubt every word."~Wes Fessler |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW: Nice pic Ace! If you need help learning how to post it properly without the mini thumbnail....let me know. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
__________________
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. |
![]() |
|
|