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

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-01-2012, 06:45 AM
luthier luthier is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by csThor View Post
You're joking, right? You aren't really saying that CloD contains any offline and/or gameplay content worth the bits on my HDD?

As for the rest. Building a sandbox for the customers to play in is all fine and dandy if the karking thing had a solid fundament! In the current situation you're essentially saying "You want offline gameplay? Code it yourself." Yep! *shattering round of sarcastic applause* Brilliant. Marvelous. Sorry for the sarcasm overflow. I couldn't help myself at this apparent disregard of an entire slice of your community.

On a more serious note. Yes, the overwhelming majority of good offline content in 1946 came from external sources. But ... you know there was going to be a but ... they had a solid fundament to build their campaigns on. There was a campaign module with rank system and medals (regardless how primitive), but CloD doesn't have any of that. Hence my "Code it yourself" statement. Well ... I can't code, programming languages don't make sense to me. Desastersoft did that, but they have their own style of campaigns and won't (for obvious reasons) release their campaign module for public consumption. Not that this would make much sense given the issues with the AI and the problems with player - AI interaction. Or has there been any addition to the radio menu with ground-attack options? Not? Oops!

So ... bottom line for me is that luthier apparently thinks that gameplay is a luxury and not needed at all. Interesting perspective, especially when you remember that Maddox Games wants to sell computer games. Unless, of course, MMO's are all you're interested in (what a coincidence, isn't it? ). I'll keep an eye on further developments, but I won't expect anything anymore. Have fun with your sandbox in which nothing but the usual clusterf*ck between fighters is possible. Too bad about the possibilities. *shakes head*
Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-01-2012, 06:50 AM
JG52Krupi's Avatar
JG52Krupi JG52Krupi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,128
Default

Hi luthier any chances you guys could look into the lack of 109 radiator drag and the same for spitfire open cockpits, thanks.

Also I heard that ships were still gravitating towards the moon please look in to that.

One last thing is that the RC patch changed the lighting, it's too bright now for example look at the light cast by a gunsight bulb during the day!!!! Please review.

Thanks for your time,

Also one more thing, please look at the spit weathering, it looks like someone dragged it through a few hedges between the assembly line and the airfield
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN View Post
Its a glass half full/half empty scenario, we all know the problems, we all know what needs to be fixed it just some people focus on the water they have and some focus on the water that isnt there....
Gigabyte X58A-UD5 | Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ATI 5970 | 6GB Kingston DDR3 | Intel 160GB G2 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit |
MONITOR: Acer S243HL.
CASE: Thermaltake LEVEL 10.
INPUTS: KG13 Warthog, Saitek Pedals, Track IR 4.

Last edited by JG52Krupi; 10-01-2012 at 06:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:15 AM
kristorf's Avatar
kristorf kristorf is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Milton Keynes, England
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
2. Will the terrible weathering on Allied aircraft be fixed?
It’s not terrible.
I'm afraid to say it is, truly terrible.
Something simple like this is for me a game breaker.

In a previous comment you say that you (and others) were fed up of seeing, and I quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
We hated seeing horrible flat user-made skins everywhere in the original Il-2,so we settled on the technology that keeps the lower-end of the quality bar firmly set where no user effort can nudge it lower – even if that means also setting the ceiling for great skin makers.
but the 'thing' in this game is worse than anything I have seen in IL2,the effect is like a sandblaster from side on, with no working level of wear, just 100% full on.
I have never seen a photo of either a Spitfire or Hurricane (or for that matter any RAF aircraft) with anything even similar to the effect imposed on Allied aircraft in this game.

A little thing I know, but this along with the broken (with no intention of fixing it) coop channel map (the main reason I and many others bought the game in the first place) really puts me off.
__________________
Regards

Chris



http://www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/index.php





Gigabyte z77-d3h, Intel Core i5-3570K 3.40GHz (OC 4.2GHz), Corsair Vengeance Low Profile 24GB DDR3 PC3-12800C9 1600MHz Dual Channel Kit , Samsung 120GB SSD 840 SATA 6Gb/s Basic, Seagate Barracuda 7200RPM 1TB SATA 6Gb/s 64MB, Cooling Silencer Mk II 750W '80 Plus Silver' PSU,
GTX580 3gb OC
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-01-2012, 08:28 AM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.
Luthier. First thanks for taking the time to answer my reply. However, I can't help but feel some kind of shizophrenic split between the first comment I quoted (where you disagreed with CloD not having any offline content) and what you wrote above. First you implied that offline is of no consequence and then you apologized for not adding stuff there due to resource issues. So what's it going to be?

Secondly I am aware that the services for Clod have been read already. I was talking in general and about future projects and your first reply implied (strongly) that offline gameplay is of no particular, if any, importance in your opinion. This strikes me as extremely strange, especially given the still strong factor of offline players. Yes, a lot of creativity lies within the community, but not paying attention to offliners and their needs and not utilizing a good offline campaign and decent single missions as showcase for what the engine can achieve is strange (to put it mildly). Just my 0,02 €...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:39 AM
adonys adonys is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
Finally a comment that got to me. Today's a bad day after all.

It goes without saying for me, and that's why it might be hard to gather that from my reply, but it's obviously OUR fault for single-player being what it is and 3rd party support not showing up.

Your general criticism is spot on. We shipped a product that had too many technical issues for us to really focus on finer elements of gameplay. There had never been a point, we're not even there today, where we could sit back, look at the code, and say, hell, what a great foundation, let's build a great game on top of it.

The GUI especially is our Achilles heel. Like I wrote earlier in the thread, somebody somewhere before I ever showed up chose to make it in a horrible clumsy environment called WPF. By the time I showed up it was too late to go back, and going forward proved extremely painful. Each new screen took forever, everything was clunky, tiny changes or bug fixes required insane amounts of effort, and in the end it took a tremendous painful effort to reach the decidedly insufficient GUI that we have today.

It's extremely painful and frustrating for everyone involved. Believe me.
Luthier, for God's sake. please open your eyes and understand: THERE IS NO OFFLINE PLAY ATM. and that not due to lack of 3rd party content, length of official campaign or horrible GUI.

no matter how good is, or it is not, a campaign/mission made (and Desastersoft's seems quite to actually be good), it has ZERO playability value because of:
- broken AI, which won't play along with you. it's like you are not existent for them, invisible. they won't follow, they won't consider you a part of their flight
- porked combat AI (they will pass each other 300m away without noticing each other, strange combat maneuvers, lack of maneuvers when fired at, etc, etc, etc)
- broken Radio Comms - you can not get them do anything.

do you understand that those are system sooo broken they are almost inexistent? and that, without them, there's no damn single player game at all?!!

that's why the number of community made content fall out to zero. because there's no point to make anything based on systems which are not working. We had two very good dynamic persistent battlefield engines on work, and both stopped dead because of exactly this reason.

come on!!!

Last edited by adonys; 10-01-2012 at 12:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 09:40 PM.


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