|
#3284263 - 05/01/11 05:47 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 219
Beelzebub
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 219
Flanders
|
I've ponderd about this *taking over CoD development*...
For me imho it would be like buying a wooden house that has it's foundation infested with termites, has no roof and windows and a moldy floor...
----------------------------------------------------------
Vlaanderen de leeuw ; 11/07/1302
|
|
|
#3284385 - 05/01/11 08:28 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: ATAG_Bliss]
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
Mogster
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
England
|
Erm...paying for each plane for WW1 is OK...can you imagine having to pay for all those planes that where released over time for IL2 FB!!!
Couldn't afford it...also I expect many planes wouldn't be bought...if they kept to the major planes for each nation then fine..
But I would like to see tham do a WW2 sim and maybe Korea....nothing with to much tech though..
I also agree with the Lighten up request...aslong as it works both ways then I'm happy.. Agree.. Could you imagine having to pay for all the flyable planes in IL2-46? Bell47 Helicopter
H19D Helicopter
HRS3 Helicopter
A-20C
A-20C_RKKA_E_NW (1942)
A-20C_RKKA_NW (1943)
A-20DB7 – Boston MK.II
A-20G
A-20G_RKKA_NW (1943)
A-20G_RKKA (1943)
A-20G_RKKF (1943)
A-20Gussr (A-20G VVS, 1943)
A-20G-1
A-20H
A-26B
AirCobra1
B-17D
B-17E
B-17F
B-17G
B-24J-100-CF
B-25D-5NC
B-25D-20NC
B-25J-15NA
B-25J-22NA
B-25C_RKKA
B-25D_RKKA
B-25J_RKKA
B-29
RB-29 Recon
Tu-4 Bull
B-25C-25NA
B-25G-1NA
B-25H-1NA
B-25J-1NA
BeaufighterMk21
BeaufighterMkIF
BeaufighterMkI ]
BeaufighterMkX
BlenheimMkIV
BlenheimMkIVF
BI-1
BI-6
BuffaloMkI
C-47
C-47A
C-47B
C-47Export
XC-47C floater
XC-47X floater
XC-47JET_Testbed
AC-47_Spooky
CW-21
DXXI_DK
DXXI_DU
DB-3b
DB-3M
DB-3T
DB-3F
FaireyBattle
FM-1_GM
FM-2_GM
F2A-2
F4F-3
F4F-4
FM-2
F4U-1A
F4U-1C
F4U-1D
F4U-4
F4U-4B
F4U-5
F4U-5N
CorsairMkI
CorsairMkII
CorsairMkIV
Curtiss F6
MartletMkI
MartletMkII
F6F-3_Early
F6F-3_Mod
F6F-5_Mod
F6F-3
F6F-5
F6F-6
F6C4Hawk
F6F-5N
F8F-2 “Bearcat”
F9F2 “Panther”
XF9F6 “Cougar”
F84G1_ThunderJet
F84G2_ThunderJet
F84G3_ThunderJet
F84G ThunderJet
F84G ThunderJet Nuke
F84F Thunderstreak
F-86_A5
F-86F25E
F-86_F1
F-86F25L
F-86_F30
FokkerG1
FulmarMkI
G-11
HALIFAX_bMkIII
HurricaneMkI_early with Watts 2-blade prop
HurricaneMkI_Ia Trop
HurricaneMkI_Ia 12lbs
HurricaneMkI_Ia 12lbs Trop
HurricaneMkI_b
HurricaneMkI_bT
HurricaneMkIIa
HurricaneMkIIb
HurricaneMkIIb Hurribomber
HurricaneMkIIb Trop
HurricaneMkIIb VVS Field Modded
HurricaneMkIIbB
HurricaneMkIIbT
HurricaneMkIIc
HurricaneMkIIcB
HurricaneMkIIcT
HurricaneMkIIc Hurribomber
HurricaneMkIIc Trop
HurricaneMkIId
HurricaneMkIIbModDZZ
HurricaneMk IV
Sea Hurricane Mk Ib
Sea Hurricane Mk IIc
Hurricane_Ex fictional plane
I-15bis
I-15bis_Skis
I-15_m22
I-15_m25
I-153M62
I-153P
I-153_2BS
I_153_2SHKAS_BS
I-153_fin
I-16type5 “Mosca”
I-16type5_SPB
I-16type5_Skis
I-16type6
I-16type6_Skis
I-16Type10
I-16type10WC
I-16Type12
I-16Type17
I-16type18
I-16Type18bs
I-16type24
I-16type24_SPB
I-16Type27
I-16Type28
I-16type29
I-185M-71
I-185M-82A
I-250
Il-2_1940_Early
Il-2_1940_Late
Il-2_1941_Early
Il-2_1941_Late
Il-2I
Il-2M_Early
Il-2M_Late
Il-2T
Il-2I_DZZMod
Il-2T_DZZMod
Il-2_3
Il-2_M3
Il-2_1941_Late_DZZ
Il-4
Il-10
I-153N_Float
Lancaster
LaGG-3series1
LaGG-3series11
LaGG-3series4
LaGG-3series29
LaGG-3series35
LaGG-3IT
LaGG-3series66
LaGG-3RD
La-5
La-5F
La-5FN
La-7
La-73xB20
La-7R
Li-2
Magister
MACCHI 5
MACCHI 7
HANSA 5
HANSA 7
MBR-2-AM-34
MiG-3
MiG-3ud
MiG-3-2xUB
MiG-3-2xShVAK
MiG-3-AM-38
MiG-3U
MiG-9protoF-2
MiG-9FS
MiG-15(bis)
MiG-15(bis) Late
MiG-17
MosquitoBMkIV
MosquitoFBMkVI
MosquitoFBMkXVIII
MosquitoBMkXVI
MosquitoNFMkII
MosquitoFBMkVICC
MosquitoTRMk33
P_11c
P_11F
P_24b
P_24e
P_24f
P_24g
P-35
P-36A-3 “Hawk”
P-36A-4 “Hawk”
P-38E “Lightning"
P-38F-1-LO
P-38G-5-LO
P-38G-10-LO
P-38G-15-LO
P-38H-5-LO
P-38J-10-LO
P-38J-15-LO
P-38J-25-LO
P-38L-5-LO
P-38J
P-38L
P-38L_Late
P-38M
P-38N
P-38-DroopSnoot
P-400
P-26
P-35
P-39D1 “Airacobra”
P-39D2
P-39N1
P-39N1M
P-39Q-1
P-39Q-10
P-39Q-30
Hawk75A-2
Hawk75A-3
Hawk75A-4
Hawk75H
Hawk81A-2
Kittyhawk
KittyhawkMkIa
P-40 new wings
P-40B
P-40C
Tomahawk
TomahawkMkIIa
TomahawkMkIIb
P-40 Breco
P-40E
P-40E-M-105
P-40F
P-40L
P-40M
P-40-N
P-40K
P-40K-5
P-40L-10
P-40M-10
P-40N-1
P-40N-5
P-47B-1
P-47B15
P-47D-10
P-47D-22
P-47D-27
P-47D
P-50-A
P-51-A
P-51B
P-51B-NA
P-51B-5NA
P-51B-10NA
P-51B-10MHood
P-51C
P-51C-NT
P-51D-5Early
P-51D-20NT
P-51D-25NA
P-51D-30NA
F-51D-30NA
P-51D-5NT
P-51D-20NA
F51_Cavalier
F51_COIN
F51_Ramjet
F51_Pulsejet
Mustang_II_Tanks
Mustang_II_NoTanks
MustangIII
P-63C
P-80A
RF-80A
F-80A_ShootingStar
P2V5_Neptune
PBN-1
PBJ_C1
PBJ_D1
PBJ_G1
PBJ_J1
Pe-2 series1 – “Pescka”
Pe-2series84
Pe-2series110
Pe-2series359
Pe-3series1
Pe-3bis
Pe-8
PZL-37B
PZL_PuW_bombs
R-5
R-5_skis
R-10
Skyraider_AD-4
Skyraider_A1-J
SB_2M-100A Dauntless
SB_2M-103
SBD-3 Dauntless
SBD-5
SeafireMkI
SeafireMkII
SeafireMkII4xH
SeafireMkII45
SeafireMkII50
SeafireMkIII
SeafireFMkIII
Seafire Mk. XV
SeaFuryMkI
SeafuryMkX
SpitfireMkI_early
SpitfireMkI
SpitfireMkIb
SpitfireMkIIa
SpitfireMkIIb
SpitfireMkVa
SpitfireMkVb
SpitfireMkVbT trop
SpitfireMkVb12lbs
SpitfireMkVb16lbs
SpitfireMkVbCLP
SpitfireMkVbLF
SpitfireMkVbLFCLP
SpitfireMkVbM4616lbs
SpitfireMkVc
SpitfireMkVcLand (Without sand scoops)
SpitfireMKVc4xHLand
SpitfireMKVc4CW
SpitfireMkVc16lbs
SpitfireMkVc4xH
SpitfireMkVIII
SpitfireMkVIIICLP
SpitfireMkIXcM61
SpitfireMkIXcM63
SpitfireMkIXc
SpitfireMkIXcCLP
SpitfireMkIXcHF
SpitfireMkIXe
SpitfireMkIXeCLP
SpitfireMkIXeHF
SpitfireMkIX25lbs
SpitfireMkIX25lbsCLP
SPITXIIearly
SpitfireMkXII
SpitfireMkXIVC
SpitfireMkLFXIVE
SpitfireMkXVIe
SpitfireMkXVIe4
SpitfireMkXVIeCLP
SpitfireMkXVIe25
SpitfireMkXVIeCLP25
Spitfire_P.R._Mk.XI
Su-2
SwordfishMkI
TempestMkV
TempestFBMkII
TyphoonMkIB
TyphoonMkIBLate
TempestMkV11Lbs
TempestMkV13Lbs
TB-3_4M-17
TB-3_4M-17_T_DZZMod
TB-3_4M-34R_T_DZZMod
TB-3_4M-34R
TB-3_4M-34R_SPB
TBF-1 “Avenger”
TBF-1C
TBM-1 “GM Avengers”
TBM-3
T6_Texan
SNJ_5C
AvengerMkIII
Tu-2S
U-2VS
U-2NB
U-2UT
U-2VS(SHKAS)
U19A_Gun
L-5_Sentinel
L-5A
TigerMoth
Su-26 aerobatics plane
Su-26m
Yak-1Light
Yak-1
Yak-1Bearly
Yak-1B_Early
Yak-1B
Yak-1Late
Yak-1PF
Yak-1PFLight
Yak-3
Yak-3P
Yak-3VK-107
Yak-3R
Yak-3bsf
Yak-3Km naval
Yak-7A
Yak-7B
Yak-7BPF
Yak-7B_late
Yak-9
Yak-9B
Yak-9D
Yak-9D-44
Yak-9DD
Yak-9M_Early
Yak-9M
Yak-9K
Yak-9RLR_DZZMod
Yak-9T
Yak-9T-44
Yak-9T-45
Yak-9U_Early
Yak-9U_NW
Yak-9U
Yak-9UT
Yak-15
Wellington-MKIII
UTI-4
UTI-4B
Trimotor
KI-98
J7W1 “Shinden”
A5M4 “Claude”
A6M2 “Zero”
A6M2-21
A6M2-N “Rufe”
A6M2-21_FB
A6M2-21_Late
A6M2-21_Late_FieldMod
A6M3 “Zero”
A6M3_Kamikazi
A6M3-22
A6M3-32
A6M3-32kai
A6M3a-22ko
A6M5 “Zero”
A6M5a
A6M5b
A6M5c
A6M5_Kamikazi
A6M6-53
A6M7_Model62
A6M7_Model63
A6M-11 “Navy Zero”
A6M-21
A6M-21RFM
A6M-21Late
A6M-21LateRFM
A6M-21LateFM
A6M-N
A6M-32
A6M-32RFM
A6M-32FM
A6M-22
A6M-22RFM
A6M-22-Ko
A6M-22Kai
A6M-52Early
A6M-52
A6M-52-Ko
A6M-52-Otsu
A6M-52-He
A6M-62
A6M-63
A6M-54
Ar-196A-3
Ar-234B-2 “Blitz”
Ar-234B-2NJ (Nightfighter)
Ar-234C-2 (4-engines)
B5N2 “Kate”
B6N2
B-239 “Brewster Buffalo”
AviaB534
AviaB534R
AviaBk534Sea naval
Bf-109B-1 “Berta”
Bf-109B-2
Bf-109C-1 “Clara”
Bf-109E-1 “Emil”
Bf-109E-1/B
Bf-109E-3
Bf-109E-3/B
Bf-109E-4
Bf-109E-4/B
Bf-109E-4/N
Bf-109E-4 Trop
Bf-109E-7
Bf-109E-7Z
Bf-109E-7/B
Bf-109E-7/N
Bf-109E-7/N Trop
Bf-109D-1 “Dora”
Bf-109D-1Late
Bf-109F-0 “Franz”
Bf-109F-1
Bf-109F-2
Bf-109F-2/B
Bf-109F-2 Trop
Bf-109F-2/B Trop
Bf-109F-2/U Galland
Bf-109F-3
Bf-109F-4
Bf-109F-4 1.3ata
Bf-109F-4/B
Bf-109F-4 Trop
Bf-109F-4/B Trop
Bf-109F-4/R-1
Bf-109F-4/Z
Bf-109F-4_Mistel
Bf-109F-5
Bf-109F-6
Bf-109G-1 “Gustav”
Bf-109G-2
Bf-109G-2 Trop 1.3ata
Bf-109G-3
Bf-109G-4
Bf-109G-4 Trop 1.3ata
Bf-109G-5
Bf-109G-5/AS
Bf-109G-6
Bf-109G-6_Late
Bf-109G-6AS
Bf-109G-6 trop 1.3ata
Bf-109G-6 Erla
Bf-109G-6 Tall Tail
Bf-109G-8
Bf-109G-10
Bf-109G-14 early
Bf-109G-14
Bf-109G-14/AS
Bf-109G-10C3
Bf-109G-10 Erla
Bf-109G-14
Bf-109K-4 “Kurfurst “
Bf-109K-4C3
Bf-109K-6
Bf-109K-14
Bf-109Z
Bf-109T Naval
Bf-110C-4
Bf-110C-4B
Bf-110G-2
BF-110-G4 (Nighfighter)
BlenheimMkI
CANT1007 Alcione
CANT1007T
CantZ1007bis
CR_32
CR_42 “Falco”
ICR.42_Indrovolante floater
DXXI_SARJA3_EARLY
DXXI_SARJA3_LATE
DXXI_SARJA4
D3A1
D3A2
Do-217K-1
Do-217K-2
Do-335A-0 “Pfeil”
Do-335V-13
Fiat G56 “Centauro”
Fi-103_V1
Fi-103R-IV
Fi-156 “Storch”
Fw-189A-2 “Uhu”
Fw-190A-2 “Wurger”
Fw-190A-3
Fw-190A-4
Fw-190A-4T
FW-190A-4_1.42ATA
Fw-190A-5
Fw-190A-5165ATA
Fw-190A-5U14
FW-190A-5_1.42ATA
FW-190A-5_1.58ATA
Fw-190A-6
Fw-190A-7
Fw-190A-7Sturm
Fw-190A-8
FW-190A-8_1.65ATA
FW-190A-9_1.65ATA
Fw-190A-9
Fw-190A-9T Navy
Fw-190A-9N
Fw-190A-8N
Fw-190A-7N
Fw-190D-9early
Fw-190D-9
Fw-190D-9_Late
Fw-190D-11
Fw190_D12R14T
Fw-190D-13
Fw190_D13T
Fw-190D-14
Fw-190D-15
Fw-190F-1
Fw-190F-2
Fw-190F-3
Fw-190F-8
Fw-190G-1
Fw-190G-2
Fw-190G-3
Fw-190G-8
Fw-190A-8Mistel
FW-200C-3U4
G_50
G-55
G-55-Late
G-55_ss0
G-55_ss0-Late
G56
G4M2e
G4M1_11
G4M2E “Betty”
GladiatorMkI
GladiatorMkII
Gladiator_EX floater
Go-229A-1
Go-229NJ
Go229A-2
H8K1
He-111H-2
He-111H-6
He-111H-12
He-111H-20
He-111H-21
He-111P-2
He-111Z
He-162A-2 “Volksjager”
He-162C
He-162B
He-219 “UHU”
He-L-IIIB2 “Lerche”
HurricaneMkI
Hs-123
Hs-129B-2
Hs-129B-3/Wa
IAR80early
IAR80
IAR81a
IAR80B
IAR80C
IAR80M
IAR8iCnew
IAR81c
J2M3
J2M5
J2M3_mod
J2M5_kai
J2M5_kai_AI
J8A
Ju-52/3mg3e
Ju-52/3mg4e
Ju-52/3mg5e
Ju-87B-1 “Stuka”
Ju-87B-2
Ju-87C “Navy”
Ju-87D-1
Ju 87D-1
Ju 87D-3 with Jumo 211J
Ju 87D-5 with Jumo 211J
Ju 87D-7
Ju 87D-8
Ju-87G-1 “Panzerknacker”
Ju-87G-2
Ju 87R-1
Ju 87R-2
Ju-88A-4
Ju-88A-4_Torp
Ju-88A-17
Ju88C-6NJ Night
Ju88C-6 Day
Ju-88Mistel
Ki-21-I “Sally”
Ki-21-II
Ki-27-Ko “Nate”
Ki-27-Otsu
Ki-30 “Ann”
Ki-31
Ki-43-Ia “Oscar”
Ki-43-Ib
Ki-43-Ic
Ki-43-II
Ki-43-II-Kai
Ki-43-Ia_DZZMod
Ki-43-Ib_DZZMod
Ki-43-Ic_DZZMod
Ki-43-II_DZZMod
Ki-43-II-Kai_DZZMod
Ki-43-III-Ko
Ki-44-II-Ko “Tojo”
Ki-44-II-Hei
Ki-44-II-Otsu
Ki-44-II-Otsu_Late
Ki-46 “Dinah”
Ki-46-Otsu
Ki-46-Otsu-Hei
Ki-46-Recce
Ki-50
Ki-51
Ki-61-I-Ko “Tony”
Ki-61-I-Hei
Ki-61-I-Otsu
Ki-84-Ia “Frank”
Ki-84-Ib
Ki-84-Ic
Ki-100-I-Ko
Ki-100-I-Otsu
L2D
MC-200series1
MC-200series3
MC-200series7
MC-200series7FB
MC-202
MC-202_III
MC-202_VII
MC-202_XII
MC-205_I
MC-205_III
Me-163B-1a
Me-210Ca-1
Me-210Ca-1ZSTR
Me-262 V-3 Original prototype
Me-262A-1 “Schwalbe”
Me-262A-1aU4
Me-262A-2ª
Me-262B-1a (2 seater)
Me-262HG-II
Me-321
Me-323
MS402
MS406
MS410 “Hornisse”
ME-410-A
ME-410-B
ME-410-D
MS-Morko
MXY-7-11
N1K1-J “George”
N1K1-Ja
N1K2-Ja
N1K3-A
N1K3-J
N1K4-J
RE-2000
RE-2002
RWD-8
RWD-10 sports plane
SM-79 “Gobbo Maleditto”
S-328
Savoia_S-21 seaplane
Ta-152C
Ta-152H-1
Ta-152H-1Mistel
Ta-183
Durand_Yak-9T
Safonovs_I-16_24
Pokryshkins_MiG-3
Pokryshkins_P-39N1
Rechkalovs_P-39Q15
ojedubs_La-7
Graf_Bf-109G-6
Hartmann_Bf-109G-6
Hans_Rudels_Ju-87G-2
Heppes_Bf-109G-6
Kovacs_Bf-109G-6
Molnar_Bf-109G-6
Fabian_Bf-109G-10
Nowotnys_Me-262A-1a
Sarvanto_DXXI
And how long will it be before Maddox announce payware DLC on top of the price of the sim Bliss? weeks?? months?? Certainly before the end of the year I bet. If you don't like 777s way of doing business then you don't get involved, simple as that. I don't understand the rage.
WAS C2D 8500 3.16ghz, 285gtx 1gb, 4gig ram, XP NOW Win7 64, I5 2500K, SSD, 8Gig ram, GTX 570
|
|
|
#3284426 - 05/01/11 09:17 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 12
Zent
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 12
Germany, Berlin
|
What i would really like to see in ROF and in Clod is a real 64 bit game engine which can use more RAM and therefore handle bigger number of objects etc.
As SynBliss explained correctly, though a bit agitated, is true, ROF is a little bit lifeless on the ground because of too little objects possible... WW1 was about HUGE masses of people, artillery, horses, carts etc. populating dense spaces.... flying low in Rof is rather idyllic but you rarely encounter something which even remotely resembles an ongoing battle... and this can be an immersion killer at times... WW1 was also about groundattack...
also the MissionEditor in ROF is not very userfriendly and would really need an overhaul...
saying this i dont want to put ROF down at all, i love the game and i am really amazed how well it has developped over the time..it runs almost flawless now within its given limitations and i am looking forward to Crossfire ;-) ... but having a 64 bit game engine and more RAM will be the ONLY way on the long run to have a deeper simulation and to add all this content... streaming as an alternative never works properly in flightsims as you can see with Clod, which has more objects but keeps sstttuutttterinngg...
Personally i like the pay by plane modell and i would also support other financial models... compared to what we pay for hardware the money for software is not really the issue i think... i mean... 100 € over two years... combat flightsimming is an exclusive niche and we must be willing to finance it or it will die...and financing a little independent company like 777 and not fill the pockets of certain other companys is very nice i think...so i would of course buy any other sim by 777 ... WW2 is good, but Korea would be even more interesting to me as its currently not on the market at all and i could never fly that area....
|
|
|
#3284435 - 05/01/11 09:29 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: ATAG_Bliss]
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
Mogster
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 6,623
England
|
1st question. Where in my post was any rage?
2nd question. Why would you think Maddox is going to announce a payware DLC? Their 1st sim (the one that happens to be the most successful sim of all time) is still going 10 years strong without any sort of payware DLC. But you think they are magically going to change the way they've done business for the last 10 years? I'm sorry but what you are posting is laughable at best.
1c releases addons that include 30+ flyable planes, 1000s of additional objects in the FMB, different theaters of operation, and several more maps for $50.
Are you making your assumptions based on a magic 8 ball or something? You just sound pretty wound up over this, if not, my mistake  We'll see who's right about the DLC, ED have already announced DLC for the DCS series. Maybe Maddox can continue doing business the current way, funded by UBI's money. ED and 777 are self funded without a publisher it seems (not too sure about ED). That's a huge list of planes for the IL2 engine now, built up over 10 years though. Just how many have detailed FM, cockpits, not them all. Many are fantasy planes or stuff that you'd fly once, stuff that was thrown in with the 46 pack. You really can't compare IL2s flight model detail with the ROF flight models. ROFs isn't tabulated, covers all states and is much more believeable and detailed than IL2s or CloD for that matter. Although I haven't flown CloD that much the first thing that's noticeable is how easy the planes are to fly without rudder input. I like IL2 btw and have nothing against it, I just prefer 777s flight modelling. Whatever your level of experience you can tell the first time you start ROF that the physics are excellent and a large step up from IL2 and CloD as it stands at the moment.
WAS C2D 8500 3.16ghz, 285gtx 1gb, 4gig ram, XP NOW Win7 64, I5 2500K, SSD, 8Gig ram, GTX 570
|
|
|
#3284437 - 05/01/11 09:32 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart
Measured in Llamathrusts
|
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
|
I think anyone who is making flight sims at this time is just a glutton for punishment:
Low profits
Abusive customer base (or has everyone forgot the Russian Mafia slurs against Neoqb?)
Impossible expectations (and the closer to perfect the more sharp the criticism)
Abusive customer base
Low profits
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events. More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.comFrom Laser: "The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
|
|
|
#3284446 - 05/01/11 09:39 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
ATAG_Bliss
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
|
Edit: @ Mogster Nope, just asking questions to people like yourself that are basing your assumptions without any facts. Kinda like your assumptions on those planes. I'll let you look up the FM in game compared to the flight test data yourself though
Last edited by SYN_Bliss; 05/01/11 09:40 PM.
|
|
|
#3284457 - 05/01/11 09:53 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 630
SC/JG_Oesau
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 630
Sydney, Australia
|
Both engines have inherent issues with their FM's - neither are perfect, then again no flight sim is (even the commercial level ones).
So here we have it guys, you both have different viewpoints and that's cool and it's great that you both have remained civil about it but you're both not going to get anywhere with this one (at least between the two of you).
I enjoy both sims for what they bring (in a slightly different way. They both have different business models, hopefully both will succeed (because it can only be good for all of the community if they do) but I do believe a pay as you go or a subscription model is best way forward.
CPU - i7-3770K @3.50Ghz, RAM - 32Gb (800Mhz), Video Card - GTX980Ti
TrackIR-4, Thrustmaster Warthog, MFG Crosswind Pedals, Satiek Quadrant, Saitek Switch Panel, Logitech G510 Keyboard, Win 7 Home Prem 64bit
|
|
|
#3284522 - 05/01/11 11:16 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Zent]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
Josh Echo
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
|
ROF is a little bit lifeless on the ground because of too little objects possible... WW1 was about HUGE masses of people, artillery, horses, carts etc. populating dense spaces.... flying low in Rof is rather idyllic but you rarely encounter something which even remotely resembles an ongoing battle... and this can be an immersion killer at times... WW1 was also about groundattack... This is true, but Rise of Flight isn't a Great War strategy game. It's a Great War flight sim. I do think that it would be nice if, at some point 'way down the road, some more attention were paid to the trenches and such, but not much. The focus must be on flight, and any aspects of the ground war that are simulated must only be done so to improve the flight experience. And so a cost-versus-benefit question must be applied to everything. Would making hopping bunnies on the grass improve the immersion? Sure, a little bit, on the few occasions that you're flying low enough to see them. Is it worth the effort to program them in? No. So, priorities ... improve the ground war just enough, and only when they have the resources to do so ... when more important things are out of the way.
|
|
|
#3284544 - 05/01/11 11:46 PM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Josh Echo]
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 697
Sturm_Williger
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 697
Virtual Paradise
|
I agree with Josh here, but I do hope that 777's developers find a way to increase the amount of ground "stuff". Particularly active stuff.
Eg. The other night I flew a bomber to attack an airfield. Having done so, I escaped ... by flying low ( <100m ) across No Man's Land - with the haze and so forth, I was much harder to see.
In real life of course, this would have been suicide. But as things stand, there's just no way to put AA machine guns at intervals along the front to preclude this without, as Bliss said, killing the server.
To me, more than anything else, this renders No Man's Land simply a "different coloured place" on the map whereas it should be ( at least on the edges ) a place you would be mad to fly below 1000m. If you find yourself low and slow or damaged close to No Man's Land, you should have to worry about it.
So even beyond immersion ( as it adds tactical elements ), and without even getting into depictions of men and battles, this should at least be looked at, hopefully sometime.
"Another glass of your loathsome, vaguely beerish frozen swill, if you please."
|
|
|
#3284556 - 05/02/11 12:04 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Zent]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,256
Bandy
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,256
Wishing I was in the La Cloche
|
What i would really like to see in ROF and in Clod is a real 64 bit game engine which can use more RAM and therefore handle bigger number of objects etc. RoF already handles 4 GB for those with 64 bit OS, and it does not come close to using it all, not at this time. If you have a 64 bit OS you can patch ALL your other exe's (x86 games or other software) using NT Core's patch LINK. I imagine CoD is already patched in a similar manner. And the original subject of this thread is simply wishful thinking at best, or just plain ludicrous...
4x2.66 GHz Xeons, XFX 4870 1 GB, 11 GB DDR2 RAM, Win7 Pro x64, 120 GB OCZ Vertex2 (MLC, Sandforce)
26" VIZIO 1920x1200, Logitech FF 3D Pro, CH pedals, Track IR4
|
|
|
#3284573 - 05/02/11 12:30 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Tiger27
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Perth, Western Australia
|
Maddox games has contractual/financial obligations with UBI and 1c. I doubt 777, or anyone else for that matter, is willing to put up with all that crap. That`s what I`d hope for - they`d expand their game engine AND business model to create great WWII flight sim. And if they just used existing ROF engine it would be so much better than current COD. No it wouldn't, totally different requirements for WW1 and WW2, this is part of the reason neoqb didnt go ahead and use the IL2-1946 engine to model WW1 instead deciding to make there own. Apart from that, online, there isn't a great deal of difference betweem the two games performance, in fact lately there are more online in CoD than ROF. I love both these sims, they both had teething troubles, but using ROF's engine to create a WW2 sim is not the way to go.
III/JG11_Tiger
|
|
|
#3284582 - 05/02/11 12:39 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,727
Rick_Rawlings
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,727
|
You guys must all fly online...
The older I get, the more I realize I don't need to be Han, Luke or Leia. I'm just happy to be rebel scum...
|
|
|
#3284589 - 05/02/11 12:49 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Sturm_Williger]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
Josh Echo
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
|
The other night I flew a bomber to attack an airfield. Having done so, I escaped ... by flying low ( <100m ) across No Man's Land - with the haze and so forth, I was much harder to see.
In real life of course, this would have been suicide. But as things stand, there's just no way to put AA machine guns at intervals along the front to preclude this without, as Bliss said, killing the server.
To me, more than anything else, this renders No Man's Land simply a "different coloured place" on the map whereas it should be ( at least on the edges ) a place you would be mad to fly below 1000m. If you find yourself low and slow or damaged close to No Man's Land, you should have to worry about it. There's a pretty basic technique for making guns spawn only when you are near them, which could allow you to populate the entire front without bringing the sim to its knees. The drawbacks are that you can only do this for cooperative missions, not dogfight missions (I think), and that it's hideously time-consuming to hand-place these things on the trenches. using ROF's engine to create a WW2 sim is not the way to go. Well, we're all glad that 777 Studios has you to correct their erroneous notions about major business decisions. [straight face]
|
|
|
#3284592 - 05/02/11 12:56 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Josh Echo]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Tiger27
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Perth, Western Australia
|
The other night I flew a bomber to attack an airfield. Having done so, I escaped ... by flying low ( <100m ) across No Man's Land - with the haze and so forth, I was much harder to see.
In real life of course, this would have been suicide. But as things stand, there's just no way to put AA machine guns at intervals along the front to preclude this without, as Bliss said, killing the server.
To me, more than anything else, this renders No Man's Land simply a "different coloured place" on the map whereas it should be ( at least on the edges ) a place you would be mad to fly below 1000m. If you find yourself low and slow or damaged close to No Man's Land, you should have to worry about it. There's a pretty basic technique for making guns spawn only when you are near them, which could allow you to populate the entire front without bringing the sim to its knees. The drawbacks are that you can only do this for cooperative missions, not dogfight missions (I think), and that it's hideously time-consuming to hand-place these things on the trenches. using ROF's engine to create a WW2 sim is not the way to go. Well, we're all glad that 777 Studios has you to correct their errors about major business decisions. [cough] I was responding to someone that thought it was a good idea, WW2 and WW1 are so different in what is required that in my opinion it isnt the way to do it, as the ROF dev team realised when trying to do the reverse which was use IL2 to make a WW1 sim, my comments were not to 777, nor to you, oh and were all glad that you have decided to be a moderator on whether people can voice there opinions or not [cough] [cough] While we are on this where has anyone said that 777 are going to make a WW2 sim?
Last edited by Tiger27; 05/02/11 01:02 AM.
III/JG11_Tiger
|
|
|
#3284637 - 05/02/11 02:04 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Tiger27]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
Josh Echo
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
|
While we are on this where has anyone said that 777 are going to make a WW2 sim? Within this very thread, as well as in others, Jason has hinted heavily at the possibility. It isn't certain that they will, but it's clear that they would like to and are keenly considering it. The engine may not be up for it at present, but I feel confident that the team is capable of eventually adding to it so that it is. One thing about Rise of Flight that isn't true of certain other flight sims is that while R.o.F. did have its problems first getting off the ground, it never had dodgy flight physics. The general flight model was highly advanced from day one, and still is. Meanwhile, the others still don't have as good of flight modelling. I do believe a pay as you go or a subscription model is best way forward. Count me out. I will not do pay-to-play. This is why I do not fly Aces High II, despite that simulator having advanced flight physics and the most accurate flight models of any Second World War flight sim. I am happy with 777's system of aircraft purchasing and such, but I must draw the line at pay-to-play. I am not alone in this. Pay-to-play is abominable; I cannot and will not participate in it.
|
|
|
#3284644 - 05/02/11 02:13 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Josh Echo]
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Tiger27
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 2,260
Perth, Western Australia
|
While we are on this where has anyone said that 777 are going to make a WW2 sim? Within this very thread, as well as in others, Jason has hinted heavily at the possibility. It isn't certain that they will, but it's clear that they would like to and are keenly considering it. The engine may not be up for it at present, but I feel confident that the team is capable of eventually adding to it so that it is. One thing about Rise of Flight that isn't true of certain other flight sims is that while R.o.F. did have its problems first getting off the ground, it never had dodgy flight physics. The general flight model was highly advanced from day one, and still is. Yes after further reading I can see they have hinted at the possibilty, personally I would rather they continue to take there lovely WW1 sim further, I would love to see trenches and troops added, and the front lines livened up, as for me this is the one thing missing from ROF, ground attack was a huge part of the role played by the RFC and the GAF, especially in the later days, this sim in its current state is a lovely WW1 dogfight sim, but it really needs more happening on the ground to complete the picture, I would just rather this content was added before resources move on to another era. Having said that money is the key to keeping these teams together, so I guess 777 have to keep looking forward as to ways to generate income so that we gamers keep getting new toys too play with.
III/JG11_Tiger
|
|
|
#3284648 - 05/02/11 02:18 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: 303_Michcich]
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,939
Scoobe
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,939
|
I too, would rather see them continue on with WW1 in ROF and keep adding great content to it. There is still so much that can be done with it.
Rob
Intel Core i7-3770K
GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 2000 (PC3 16000)
MSI GTX 960 GTX 4GB
|
|
|
#3284755 - 05/02/11 03:53 AM
Re: 777 Studios taking over COD development ?
[Re: Scoobe]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
Josh Echo
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,216
|
I too, would rather see them continue on with WW1 in ROF and keep adding great content to it. There is still so much that can be done with it. Why should you assume that they are planning on abandoning the Great War before reasonably finishing it?
|
|
|
|
