I think we were just about to start swapping pancake recipes.

Well I was there right from release with RoF and CoD and as for RoF if memory serves it was very limited in content but apart from that the only major issues were the online ROF.exe errors. Apart from that it ran smoothly and looked stunning out of the box and had frequent significant updates throughout. CoD on the other hand ground to a halt over land, had serious bugs in most major aspects of the code,had more place holders than a Royal banquet, and to date has evolved at a glacial pace.

I can't say I play CoD much at all any more, its been over a month since I started it to play it but I don't have some sinister grudge against it. It just doesn't do enough for me personally, for example, as a sim pilot if I stuff up an approach and sink into the trees I expect to pay for it with a prang. Almost a year down the line to be told 'some time,maybe' for key things like that makes me want to fly something else. simple. I am still very interested in the development of the game though as I hope that it comes to fruition and I will want to fly it and others in my squad will want to too.

RoF has loads of shortcommings as the thread on their forums illustrates but to bash it in defence of CoD hacks me off something chronic. Bleating about all the objects that CoD has compared to RoF (for example) is bogo to me. Personally I fly a sim in the cockpit not in the objects folder. for me RoF came out of the box as a more usable product than CoD is even now.

Some people have to accept that:

a: creating a new graphics engine isn't done in a week, it might take a year.

b: Debugging doesn't work on a timetable, it is impossible to predict with some accuracy how long it takes.

c: The planned freedom of the CoD engine also raises the complexity, adding to the difficulties

d: to ask for a timetable is redundant, see points a:, b: and c:

As far as i can predict MG's plan its like the priorities i've posted before

And: When the patch is working, it will be released; When the patch is Final(Steam) the work on FM, AI and debugging is still going on.

I have to stop now, my crystal ball gets cloudy, but i still see a light!

A) you just made that up.

B) Of course, it would just nice to know the fixes are coming in a patch, of which we have no idea.

C) Well duh...but that's what they are paid for.

D) see B.

I think there were issues with people on 64 bit OSes too, but the basic functionality was better than what CoD was and is. The AI in RoF isn't that good and I get bored with it. TBH I (as I've mentioend on a few ocassions) have a piddling PC. I can't do heavy missions, but I am able to load up a 9 x 9 skirmish with rain and have very little to no slow down. In a default mission (777 Studios version of a quick mission) I get one major freeze when an enemy first pops up and again fires on me the first time. After that I'm fine. Campaigns get a little more hairy for me.

There are aspects that I think CoD does better. I like the landscape much better. RoF seems rather barren to me. Thinking back to when the Berlin map was released for FB/IL2, I remember almost no one able to run it at first. CoD has cities that make that Berlin map look like a Play School toy set. And you only need to go a few more km's to see another just as large and detailed. I do think RoF has a great lighting system, and I like the river banks better in it than CoD.

I'm more in line with robtek's thoughts here and see there is a map of 'rebuilding' that has to be completed before other issues (just as important) can be fixed. It's like a house. You need the foundation sure before the frame gets put up. I can't fix it. I can't even lend a hand, so b!tchin' about it solves nothing. Accusing of mismanagement or possibly lieing solves nada. Whining about timelines isn't productive and it's not going to make things go faster. I think it's the depth of the simulation that's giving then the hard time, and as much as I don't like it I have to wait. The decal issue was probably a symptom of a deeper programing problem - hense the longer than anticipated wait. As much as we're frustrated I can't imagine how the boys at 1C/ Maddox games feel.

What I can say is that we're a small community, and we wouldn't be complaining or supporting if we didn't care. This hobby is important to us. I'd not be seeing many of the same names for the last 4.5 years on the IL2 forums..... Seven years at Sim HQ..... and almost ten years at the UBI site. I understand the frustrations.

So I'm trying to make the best of it by experimenting with the movie maker function.... learning engine management.... messing about with the mission maker.... flying about looking for 'easter eggs' and landmarks that would be interesting.... and the ocassional dogfight or mission.

There are things in RoF that have been needing fixing since release, but over all it functions well. Both are on my hard drive for a reason. I'm a Sim Fan and I get enjoyment from them - even in the limited scope CoD is able to perform now.

Well, this graphics patch doesn't seem to holding up the development of BOM one little bit. It also hasn't affected the work on the AA guns or tanks we have seen, so this talk of it holding up fixes for other things is nonsense.

Many people have never understood the development process.

The developer has used the community, to help them research material they needed to develop the sim.

In return the developer lets us know most of the features they are working on, provided WIP screenshots, and some videos thru the very long process. All along stating there were no promises on what could be completed and the no known timeframe of those that could be completed.

All through the process people have continued to ask the question "When". There were far too many variables for them to know when, but there would be pressure from the bean counters as well, so they hazard a few guesses, and got crucified and called "Liars".

Finally after a multitude of setbacks, some self inflicted, some due to circumstance beyond their control, the sim didn't get finished, and the development funds dried up. What do you do then. Cancel the sim and walk away? Everyone loses. The investors lose, the developers lose their jobs, the WW2 aircombat communities lose the only real simulator in development.

Was there a better solution? Maybe a Win Win solution, one where the investors have a chance to get their money back, where the developers keep their jobs, and where its possible the community could eventually have the sim we all want.

Waiting for the sim to be finished before release wasn't an option, the investment money had dried up.

The only possible way for anything good to happen was release what was finished and hope there was enough sales to show the bean counters they hadn't wasted millions of dollars and there was still a chance to get their monies back. Now will there be enough sales to continue development, if they put, "Unfinished" on the box title. Probably not. People would understand the dilemma wouldn't they? Not enough people would. Many people in the community would gladly invest full price for the possibility of the simulator we all want, but again probably not enough monies would be generated to continue development. Its a "Catch 22", but a decision had to be to made. Would the community understand, most would, while others never understood the development process, why would they understand this decision. They new the reviews would be poor and there would be "you promised" spammed thru the forums, but it was the only way the sim could ever be finished.

Did the developer think they would have to rewrite the graphics engine before they could finish the sim, probably not. They assumed they would be able to optimize the existing graphics code. Things were looking good recently when Luthier stated they were close to releasing the performance patch, but reading between lines suggests this latest setback is very serious and could very well put the development out of its misery, but lose their jobs, investors their monies, the community their sim. Hopefully the developer will find the answers to finishing the patch soon. I knew for many years it would be very difficult to put all the features they talked about with playable frame rates, and many features would have to be slowly integrated thru the life of the series, but this performance setback could be the straw the broke the camels back.

This could all be bullcr#p, but probably more logical the most of the conspiracy theories presented.

Hmmm...agree with pretty much 90% of that Chivas, though like i say this graphics patch is not holding up work on BOM is it? and i assume its using the same engine.

Pass the cake please