homepage

Friday update

Posted By: kilosierra

Friday update - 02/24/12 02:42 PM

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29967

As I also wrote there, I really like the boiler of the train blowing up.
Posted By: Trooper117

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 03:33 PM

Totaly unbelievable.. ''coming soon'' frown
Posted By: FIScott

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 03:56 PM

I'm not convinced that the manable vehicles are the right direction for a cutting edge flight sim to be going in. the raging arguement seems to be that this is an entirely seperate develpment to the flight sim aspects of the game and doesn't detract from that at all. Not sure if I'm buying that tbh. I'm not saying the idea doesn't have merit, it sort of sounds like a reverse version of Arma2 where you have a detailed FPS and semi arcade aircraft, CoD would be the opposite. I still think that it is the kind of thing that would have been better suited to forming a 'ground forces' expansion pack further down the line. I suppose for that matter it may come out like that anyway ?

Encouraging news about the patch, smooth and stable gameplay has to be step one for this now.
Posted By: Trooper117

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 04:03 PM

Smoother and a more stable game will be a step in the right direction to be sure..
But to show yet another video of how the ground forces aspect is developing, when they have acknowledged they aren't even sure if it will make it into the finished game is a non event..
We hopefully wanted to see how the 'flight simulation' side is improving.. Is it me? Am I assuming too much by wanting to see some actual air combat simulation progress?.. if so I apologize in advance.
Posted By: Boilerplate*

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 04:13 PM

Originally Posted By: TROOPER117
Is it me? Am I assuming too much by wanting to see some actual air combat simulation progress?.. if so I apologize in advance.


Oh stop it... you're being too coy. blush
Posted By: KRT_Bong

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 04:35 PM

I'm savvy enough in all forms of gaming to see where this could go and it's cool but.. I have to agree this only serves to aggravate an already angry group who want to see progress on a patch and not on a as yet undecided feature. I don't think it would require infantry but being able to have some control over the battlefield as a "coop instance" in the greater mission set is going to be an awesome thing if it works. I can't see driving vehicles over huge distances but I can see battlefield pushes for control over positions augmented by air power in a way not previously thought of before and that really could be ground breaking.
Posted By: Boilerplate*

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 04:43 PM

This to me is beginning to sound like a diversion.

Pop smoke!
Posted By: Pudfark

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 04:59 PM

Same old BS...to me.
Bait & Switch
Posted By: Brigstock

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 05:03 PM

Originally Posted By: TROOPER117
Smoother and a more stable game will be a step in the right direction to be sure..
But to show yet another video of how the ground forces aspect is developing, when they have acknowledged they aren't even sure if it will make it into the finished game is a non event..
We hopefully wanted to see how the 'flight simulation' side is improving.. Is it me? Am I assuming too much by wanting to see some actual air combat simulation progress?.. if so I apologize in advance.


It ain't just you....
Posted By: theOden

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 05:23 PM

"Unfortunately we could not do any benchmarks on the famous Black Death track. We know everyone’s been asking about it. The track however is currently broken due to changes in other unrelated parts of the code."

Anyone knows how many hundreds of man-hours it takes to create this Black Death mission?
Must be one helluva creation..
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 05:24 PM

Every week I try to lower my expectations regarding these "updates" but every time they manage to disappoint me again.

By now I've just given up on trying to understand what Luthier&Co are doing there.

Do they honestly believe to reach a broader audience by integrating some kind of tank game into a flightsim? That they could actually take away a share from the guys who play World of Tanks or Red Orchestra 2? Do they actually have ANY idea how the whole thing should work from a gameplay PoV opposed to "wouldn't it be totally cool if"?

And all that with the very limited resources that have plagued the series for years? So that we'll get a 3rd-rate tank game added to our 2nd-rate flightsim?

I shake my head in disbelief...
Posted By: SHar82

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 05:31 PM

Same here... I think they totally lost us. Back to Skyrim, ROF and pCARS then... Terrible end of legacy for il2....
Posted By: bisher

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 05:35 PM

I have no expectations and have absolutely no motivation to speculate. I just want the finished product please and thank you
Posted By: KRT_Bong

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 05:42 PM

Originally Posted By: theOden
"Unfortunately we could not do any benchmarks on the famous Black Death track. We know everyone’s been asking about it. The track however is currently broken due to changes in other unrelated parts of the code."

Anyone knows how many hundreds of man-hours it takes to create this Black Death mission?
Must be one helluva creation..


Well it starts with creating it in the FMB and recording it as a track, switching between camera positions. I should think that reloading the mission and re-recording it would do the trick but perhaps there are scripting issues? Who can say till we get it and see what they mean. I remember that tracks I recorded in 1946 didn't work the same after patches sometimes. Whenever I try to record a track in COD my game crashes.
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 06:01 PM

I find this quite exciting - I figure it increases the probability that they'll model collisions with trees... (given time)

I got Pacific Fighters because I wanted to try flying the Ki-43, but more importantly, because it would lower the daylight muzzleflashes on my Mig-3... The dev's can't please everyone: If they announced they were making a submarine sim - I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd still be excited to have AI submarines which dive when under attack wink

IMHO, at some point you have to decide between a glass-half-full or a glass-half-empty. The first is more fun.
Posted By: Para_Bellum

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 06:11 PM

I envy you for your optimism, Aimimus. I really do.

I'd actually be happy if I had a glass half full. At the moment I feel like I've ordered a glass of water, got a tambourine instead and get told that I'll get a pair of sandals to go with that sometime in the future. That's probably great if you like tambourines and sandals but I just want a glass of water thank you.



wink
Posted By: csThor

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 06:41 PM

I am actually beginning to think that these "updates" were made simply for the sake of saying "something". For starters PR has always been the red-headed stepchild of MG and with Luthier at the helm it's only gotten worse so I guess they don't want to invest more than the bare minimum of time. Secondly I have problems imagining what kind of update would actually pacify the community - and especially how that would look like. Performance vid? Too dependent on the hardware. FM? Can't be shown. Bugfixing? No screenshot or vid potential. It would, essentially, be a list of fixes ... and I don't see Luthier sit down to actually compile such a list. Not that it would end the criticism, since it's quite clear that not all the problems will be solved with the next patch. blush
Posted By: ZG26_Emil

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 06:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Brigstock
Originally Posted By: TROOPER117
Smoother and a more stable game will be a step in the right direction to be sure..
But to show yet another video of how the ground forces aspect is developing, when they have acknowledged they aren't even sure if it will make it into the finished game is a non event..
We hopefully wanted to see how the 'flight simulation' side is improving.. Is it me? Am I assuming too much by wanting to see some actual air combat simulation progress?.. if so I apologize in advance.


It ain't just you....


I want to know when I can see "massive air battles" you know....like in the Battle of Britain.

By the time this is possible my 3000 worth of gaming rig will be worth about twenty quid...good job I bought it for surfing the net as well eh pitchafit
Posted By: Rodney

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 07:04 PM

Their answer to world of planes mmo? Tanks and planes seems a common theme at the moment, perhaps luthier is just getting an edge on the competition.
Posted By: bisher

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 07:06 PM

Good points csThor
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 07:42 PM

leave Luthier alone, what dont you understand about WIP, place holders and the sim having to be released unfinished. Have some patience, making flight sims is very hard.
You "are we there yet?" guys really should get a life.

































partything
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:21 PM

Later in the thread BlackSix indicates there will be a collision model for the Trees in the future. Its highly unlikely that the next patch will address all the game play issues, but it should be a good start.

I don't have a problem with the development working on the ground war aspect of the sim. Its doesn't imply to me that the developer is abandoning the flight sim aspects of the sim. It suggests to me that the developer is confident that the air combat issues of the sim will be addressed. It also suggests that the sim is on more stable financial grounds, than I thought. The only part of the update that gave me pause was the "Coming Soon". Then I realized nothing comes soon with this development and I felt better. wink Like I said before, I can see them slowly introducing ground war features into the series and then a full Combined Forces sim released after all the major Air Theaters have been done. It is possible we could see a Combined Forces sim sooner if the main IC develop group hires or assigns another development crew to build those sims with the new IL-2 engine.
Posted By: Bumfluff

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:21 PM

Unfortunately I have ot played this game for months now. I bought what I thought was going to be a flight sim. Now it's turning into a tank sim?

WTF? Seriously.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:23 PM

Furbs...


biggrin biggrin biggrin biggrin
Posted By: FearlessFrog

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:23 PM

Ah, the Friday update.

They are basically Catnip for Complaints at this stage smile

As for the content, interesting things for me:

- The graphics updates don't sound like they are months away, or they are really bad at lying.

- The Black Death track not working anymore is perhaps a peak into the fact that there may be some breaking changes coming. They might not have planned for missions and stuff breaking. The beta of the update might take a while if that's the case.

- Tanks are a good start, but agricultural machinery followed by the economic modelling to allow for my Horse Farm in a WWII air sim is what I'm really waiting for. (btw: I don't mind/care about the ground stuff, so no panties in a bunch about that stuff)

Also, as it's Friday and what's the harm:



smile
Posted By: Robb

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:34 PM

Originally Posted By: FearlessFrog

- Tanks are a good start, but agricultural machinery followed by the economic modelling to allow for my Horse Farm in a WWII air sim is what I'm really waiting for. (


My thoughts exactly
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:41 PM

I agree FF. OK what about the FM, they didn't say anything about the FM, OMG they must have stopped all work on the FM. WTF?????
Posted By: FearlessFrog

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Robb
Originally Posted By: FearlessFrog

- Tanks are a good start, but agricultural machinery followed by the economic modelling to allow for my Horse Farm in a WWII air sim is what I'm really waiting for. (


My thoughts exactly


There's two of us at least then, that's a sustainable market in sims - I'm getting my good stationary out and demanding an expansion forthwith! A strongly worded, multiple font letter is winging it's way to Russia this very morning.

Also, less I be < 0 useful in this thread - the wee tanks are just up on Youtube, so might as well just show it here for the lazy (or the squeamish of the 'battle of wits, come unarmed' stuff in the 1C yellow bouncy castle forum smile

Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: csThor
For starters PR has always been the red-headed stepchild of MG and with Luthier at the helm it's only gotten worse so I guess they don't want to invest more than the bare minimum of time.


Interesting CsThor, we've both been around for a long time - however, my view is a little different: I thought Oleg was usually brilliant in his personal style and PR back in the post-release heyday. Things just deteriorated after 2007...
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Para_Bellum
I envy you for your optimism, Aimimus. I really do.

I'd actually be happy if I had a glass half full. At the moment I feel like I've ordered a glass of water, got a tambourine instead and get told that I'll get a pair of sandals to go with that sometime in the future. That's probably great if you like tambourines and sandals but I just want a glass of water thank you.



wink


Thanks. However, you've got me upside down - I'm a pessimist, that is why I'm so happy. wink

You see, I assumed Oleg's grand plan for drivable vehicles would likely be scrapped and that less progress would be made in other areas. The fact that anything good is happening simply surprises me. Expect the worst and sometimes 'good' seems like 'the best'.
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:53 PM

Originally Posted By: FearlessFrog


- Tanks are a good start, but agricultural machinery followed by the economic modelling to allow for my Horse Farm in a WWII air sim is what I'm really waiting for. (btw: I don't mind/care about the ground stuff, so no panties in a bunch about that stuff)


Oh definitely,

We all know that many squadrons had pet 'mascots' during the war. They helped keep morale up.

I'd really like a Donkey that I can pet. I'll name him Elno.

I hope we can pet them... it'd be a great feature (and it'll really motivate me to keep those German straffers away from the field...)
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Bumfluff
Unfortunately I have ot played this game for months now. I bought what I thought was going to be a flight sim. Now it's turning into a tank sim?

WTF? Seriously.


Life's unpredictable eh? Just be glad it wasn't your spouse...! biggrin
I always liked 'mystery bags' myself...
Posted By: FearlessFrog

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 08:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Avimimus
Originally Posted By: FearlessFrog


- Tanks are a good start, but agricultural machinery followed by the economic modelling to allow for my Horse Farm in a WWII air sim is what I'm really waiting for. (btw: I don't mind/care about the ground stuff, so no panties in a bunch about that stuff)


Oh definitely,

We all know that many squadrons had pet 'mascots' during the war. They helped keep morale up.

I'd really like a Donkey that I can pet. I'll name him Elno.

I hope we can pet them... it'd be a great feature (and it'll really motivate me to keep those German straffers away from the field...)


Man, I'd give Luthiers right arm to be able to work on a Donkey Mod. All those people that say CloD lacks 'soul' would be weeping like babies once I'd finished my 'The Longest Day - For a Donkey' mission campaign.

Of course, you'd get the usual 'Ass and Mule' brigade dragging the community down with realism complaints about Elno's markings etc. 'I thought I could see 1000 asses on my Altair 8800!!! I've been robbed!!'
smile
Posted By: ATAG_Snapper

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 09:19 PM

10 years from now...............

"So, I fly Spitfires in the original IL2 series for years. Do you think people call me "Snapper the Fighter Ace"? NO!

Then I drive armoured vehicles for years in Cliffs of Dover. Do people call me "Snapper the Tank Commander"? NO!

But.......in Battle of Moscow I spend JUST ONE NIGHT with JUST ONE DONKEY --- and guess what people call me........"
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 09:25 PM

Says perfectly how i feel.

Originally Posted by RCAF_FB_Orville View Post
+1, its a great flight of fantasy......but purely a dream, especially considering where we are at present. Blackdog, whilst I enjoy reading your posts enormously usually, calling people 'shallow' for the terrible crime of not being interested in ground combat when they *drum roll.....shock horror* bought a flight sim is quite laughable IMO, and this really should come as no surprise when one thinks about it. No offence of course.

Like I said in my previous post, I am not militantly opposed to it, as such, I just don't care. Its fine and dandy as long as I get a finished CoD. I am happy to take their word that this will be the case, and look forward to that day. Really, its quite apparent that it will be left to modders when the SDK come outs to recreate anything even approaching an immersive BoB.....which is what I bought the thing for (crazy, I know lol)....Like a lot of other folks too, obviously.

We do not have any idea whatsoever that 1c plan any kind of grandiose strategic element to this.....Since they apparently cannot even come up with a Chain home radar network and German radar equivalents on the strategic side of things (despite it being talked about by Oleg ages ago....Like many things), which one would think rather important in something which purports to be a simulation of the BoB; why do you think they can come up with something as complex as the presumably dynamic, all inclusive strategic sim elements you are musing on? What happened to crawling before you walk. The possibility of such a thing? Fantastic. My faith in their ability to do so on current evidence, at present? Sadly, negligible.

As for 'the majority are supportive of this', to what extensive market research are you alluding, blackdog? Its just that I and many others don't remember being asked a thing lol. Only a very small number of customers regularly frequent the forums, hardly representative overall. Its safe to assume methinks a majority didn't give a monkeys about tanks and jeeps, and that was probably the last thing on their mind when they bought CoD.....hehe.

It may be that we will get radar at a later date, if so thats great, but my overwhelming impression is that CoD is being very discreetly shoved into a corner (out of sight out of mind) and that doesn't really wash with a lot of people, its just that only a few have the moxy to say it because they will invariably be attacked.

I'm not here to argue, its just an opinion, and its fine that others disagree. I'm also not a killjoy, if people want to run around in their poxy tanks then let them......Have fun and knock yerselfs out lol. Just give us correct performance data blue and red, ceilings, decent AI, systems bugs fixed working AA etc and SDK, then I'm happy as larry. That remains to be seen.....but hope springs eternal.

You've got to have a dream, eh?

Again, for posterity, not opposed to it so long as flight simulation is the overwhelming focus, I'm happy that others like it, I just sadly cannot share in or relate to their boundless joy.

I also apologise profusely for being so shallow, unimaginative, and narrow minded. The truth is, I really wanted the ability to deploy into Britain German FPS Para's disguised as Nuns, with explosive chastity belt 'power ups' and the ability to poison the British water supply with 'Holy water' which is actually really a powerful neurotoxin hidden in special 'bonus areas' of the map by fifth columnist Nazi sympathising traitors. The figure head of this organisation being SpitGirls evil twin sister, Helga the Horrid distinguishable by her wooden legs, and merciless, unseeing, glass eyes. Oh my gosh, the possibilities!

This could only be accessed after achieving a 5 tank kill streak however. Its not like I'm not a dreamer! Believe it or not, I have an imagination, too.

Right, this post is actually in good humour, so theres no need to kick off. Its just how I see it, that's all. YMMV. Roll on patch, stay positive.

Peace out.
Posted By: bisher

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 10:55 PM

Could you condense that Furbs, way too many words
Posted By: ATAG_Snapper

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: bisher
Could you condense that Furbs, way too many words


"WTF?"
Posted By: FearlessFrog

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:05 PM

Originally Posted By: bisher
Could you condense that Furbs, way too many words


Here's you go:

+1, itz a gr8 flight of fantasy......but purely a dream, especalE considering whr we R @ presnt. Blackdog, whilst I njoy reading yor posts enormously usually, clng ppl 'shallow' 4 d terrible crime of not bn intRStd n ground combat wen dey *drum roll.....shock horror* bought a flight sim iz quite laughable IMO, & DIS rly shud cum az n surprIz wen 1 thinks bout it. n offence of corS.

lIk I sed n my previous post, I M not militantly opOzD 2 it, az such, I jst don't cAR. itz fiN & dandy az lng az I git a finishD CoD. I M :-) 2 tAk thR wrd dat DIS wiL b d case, & L%k 4ward 2 dat dA. Really, itz quite apparent dat it wiL b L 2 modders wen d SDK cum outs 2 recreate NEthing evN approaching an immersive BoB.....which iz wot I bought d tng 4 (crazy, I knO lol)....Like a lot of othR folks too, obviously.

We do not hav NE idea whatsoever dat 1c plan NE kind of grandiose strategic element 2 this.....Since dey apparently Cnot evN cum ^ w a Chain om radar network & German radar equivalents on d strategic side of things (despite it bn talked bout by Oleg ages ago....Like mNE things), whch 1 wud tink rather important n somTIN whch purports 2 b a simulation of d BoB; Y do U tink dey cn cum ^ w somTIN az complex az d presumably dynamic, aL inclusive strategic sim elements U R musing on? wot hapnd 2 crwling b4 U wlk. d possibility of such a thing? Fantastic. My f8th n thR ability 2 do so on curNt evidence, @ present? Sadly, negligible.

az 4 'the majority R supportive of this', 2 wot extensive mrkt rEsrch R U alluding, blackdog? itz jst dat I & mNE others don't remMbR bn askd a tng lol. Only a v sml # of customers regularly frequent d forums, hardly representative overall. itz sAf 2 assume methinks a majority didn't GIV a monkeys bout tanks & jeeps, & dat wz problE d lst tng on thR mind wen dey bought CoD.....hehe.

It mA b dat we wiL git radar @ a l8r date, f so datz great, bt my overwhelming impression iz dat CoD iz bn v discreetly shoved in2 a corner (out of cite out of mind) & dat doesn't rly wash w a lot of people, itz jst dat only a few hav d moxy 2 sA it cuz dey wiL invariably b attacked.

I'm not hEr 2 argue, itz jst an opinion, & itz fiN dat others disagree. I'm also not a killjoy, f ppl wnt 2 run rownd n thR poxy tanks thN lt them......Have smile & knock yerselfs out lol. jst GIV us coRec performance data blu & red, ceilings, decent AI, systems bugs fixD working AA etc & SDK, thN I'm :-) az larry. dat remains 2 b seen.....but hOp springs eternal.

You've got 2 hav a dream, eh?

Again, 4 posterity, not opOzD 2 it so lng az flight simulation iz d overwhelming focus, I'm :-) dat others lIk it, I jst sadly Cnot share n o relate 2 thR boundless joy.

I also apologise profusely 4 bn so shallow, unimaginative, & narrow minded. d truth is, I rly wntd d ability 2 deploy in2 Britain German FPS Para's disguised az Nuns, w xplosiv chastity belt 'power ups' & d ability 2 poison d British H2O supply w 'Holy water' whch iz actually rly a powerful neurotoxin hidden n specL 'bonus areas' of d map by 5th columnist Nazi sympathising traitors. d figur hed of DIS org bn SpitGirls }-) twin sister, Helga d Horrid distinguishable by her wooden legs, & merciless, unseeing, glaS eyes. Oh my gosh, d possibilities!

DIS c%d only b accessed aftR achieving a 5 tank kill strEk howevR. itz not lIk I'm not a dreamer! BlEv it o not, I hav an imagination, t%.

Right, DIS post iz actually n gud humour, so theres n nEd 2 kick off. itz jst how I c it, that's aL. YMMV. roL on patch, stA +ve.

(-<-) out.


Over 30% reduction in size! smile
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:05 PM

Donkeys pah.

Extensive market research has shown that what gamers want in a flight sim is dromedaries.

Then we can have MMOCR - massively multiplayer online camel racing.

Only 1C could successfully model camels running - their knees are screwed on backwards you know. Personally I've been waiting for this for years!

Ever since Brittany Spears first got me interested in camels.

H
Posted By: FearlessFrog

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:10 PM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill
Donkeys pah.

Extensive market research has shown that what gamers want in a flight sim is dromedaries.

Then we can have MMOCR - massively multiplayer online camel racing.

Only 1C could successfully model camels running - their knees are screwed on backwards you know. Personally I've been waiting for this for years!

Ever since Brittany Spears first got me interested in camels.

H


Camels, hmm - someone would still get the hump over it.

PS PM me the Brit vid, local laws permitting
Posted By: Pudfark

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:18 PM

After reading the "animal" posts....?
I'd say that CloD has hit rock bottom...

Good Post Furbs....Seems like the warden is running the asylum here. elmo
Posted By: FearlessFrog

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Pudfark
After reading the "animal" posts....?
I'd say that CloD has hit rock bottom...

Good Post Furbs....Seems like the warden is running the asylum here. elmo


Do you mean the inmates are running the asylum here rather than warden? The warden running the asylum is actually what's meant to happen I think.

Also, apologies if the jokes are a bit too much. I understand for some it is a serious matter, and not a laughing matter.
Posted By: Biggles07

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:43 PM

Originally Posted By: FearlessFrog
Originally Posted By: bisher
Could you condense that Furbs, way too many words


Here's you go:

+1, itz a gr8 flight of fantasy......but purely a dream, especalE considering whr we R @ presnt. Blackdog, whilst I njoy reading yor posts enormously usually, clng ppl 'shallow' 4 d terrible crime of not bn intRStd n ground combat wen dey *drum roll.....shock horror* bought a flight sim iz quite laughable IMO, & DIS rly shud cum az n surprIz wen 1 thinks bout it. n offence of corS.

lIk I sed n my previous post, I M not militantly opOzD 2 it, az such, I jst don't cAR. itz fiN & dandy az lng az I git a finishD CoD. I M :-) 2 tAk thR wrd dat DIS wiL b d case, & L%k 4ward 2 dat dA. Really, itz quite apparent dat it wiL b L 2 modders wen d SDK cum outs 2 recreate NEthing evN approaching an immersive BoB.....which iz wot I bought d tng 4 (crazy, I knO lol)....Like a lot of othR folks too, obviously.

We do not hav NE idea whatsoever dat 1c plan NE kind of grandiose strategic element 2 this.....Since dey apparently Cnot evN cum ^ w a Chain om radar network & German radar equivalents on d strategic side of things (despite it bn talked bout by Oleg ages ago....Like mNE things), whch 1 wud tink rather important n somTIN whch purports 2 b a simulation of d BoB; Y do U tink dey cn cum ^ w somTIN az complex az d presumably dynamic, aL inclusive strategic sim elements U R musing on? wot hapnd 2 crwling b4 U wlk. d possibility of such a thing? Fantastic. My f8th n thR ability 2 do so on curNt evidence, @ present? Sadly, negligible.

az 4 'the majority R supportive of this', 2 wot extensive mrkt rEsrch R U alluding, blackdog? itz jst dat I & mNE others don't remMbR bn askd a tng lol. Only a v sml # of customers regularly frequent d forums, hardly representative overall. itz sAf 2 assume methinks a majority didn't GIV a monkeys bout tanks & jeeps, & dat wz problE d lst tng on thR mind wen dey bought CoD.....hehe.

It mA b dat we wiL git radar @ a l8r date, f so datz great, bt my overwhelming impression iz dat CoD iz bn v discreetly shoved in2 a corner (out of cite out of mind) & dat doesn't rly wash w a lot of people, itz jst dat only a few hav d moxy 2 sA it cuz dey wiL invariably b attacked.

I'm not hEr 2 argue, itz jst an opinion, & itz fiN dat others disagree. I'm also not a killjoy, f ppl wnt 2 run rownd n thR poxy tanks thN lt them......Have smile & knock yerselfs out lol. jst GIV us coRec performance data blu & red, ceilings, decent AI, systems bugs fixD working AA etc & SDK, thN I'm :-) az larry. dat remains 2 b seen.....but hOp springs eternal.

You've got 2 hav a dream, eh?

Again, 4 posterity, not opOzD 2 it so lng az flight simulation iz d overwhelming focus, I'm :-) dat others lIk it, I jst sadly Cnot share n o relate 2 thR boundless joy.

I also apologise profusely 4 bn so shallow, unimaginative, & narrow minded. d truth is, I rly wntd d ability 2 deploy in2 Britain German FPS Para's disguised az Nuns, w xplosiv chastity belt 'power ups' & d ability 2 poison d British H2O supply w 'Holy water' whch iz actually rly a powerful neurotoxin hidden n specL 'bonus areas' of d map by 5th columnist Nazi sympathising traitors. d figur hed of DIS org bn SpitGirls }-) twin sister, Helga d Horrid distinguishable by her wooden legs, & merciless, unseeing, glaS eyes. Oh my gosh, d possibilities!

DIS c%d only b accessed aftR achieving a 5 tank kill strEk howevR. itz not lIk I'm not a dreamer! BlEv it o not, I hav an imagination, t%.

Right, DIS post iz actually n gud humour, so theres n nEd 2 kick off. itz jst how I c it, that's aL. YMMV. roL on patch, stA +ve.

(-<-) out.


Over 30% reduction in size! smile


rofl

Leave the bloke alone, I think he's the dogs proverbials! A shining beacon of truth in a sea of murky, malcontented obfuscation. Probably a future candidate for president of the World, too.....I reckon.

But then I would say that, wouldn't I....Given the fact that its actually me. biggrin

I did toy with the idea of letting the comments go, but to be honest I don't think I could handle the emotional trauma. People can be so cruel at times. The 'Chav-Translate' tool was very funny though Frog, cheers. biggrin

As with most things, better in context, and here is the original (slightly less 'dry' in tone and lots of cheerful yellow chaps smiling. A bit like China being carpet bombed with concentrated MDMA.) hahaha

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29967&page=21

Blackdog is great, smashing fella but he is most definitely a dreamer (not necessarily a bad thing though). See his previous comments a few pages earlier to see what was being replied to. If you think that brevity is a virtue, (and yes that was long, for me) then you don't know what pain is!
smile

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29967&page=19

Pudfark, thanks for the moral support. Bish, I thought we wuz pals! biggrin

Snapper, I'm so hurt right now its untrue. biggrin

Carry on. Remember though that Simhq members (even in another virtual form) have feelings, too.

hahaha


Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:46 PM

Frogy, i actually tried to read your post, now i have a headache. dizzy
Posted By: Uriah

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:50 PM

I liked what I saw. I can see the tank boys coming to attack my home field with some air cover. I have to help defend my own field.
Posted By: robtek

Re: Friday update - 02/24/12 11:59 PM

The "doom'n'gloom" - "glass half empty" party is even more present here, then in the 1c forum.

Sometimes it makes me sad, that those people get the same gains from the updates as the stout supporters, despite their attitude.

Imo, of course.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 12:10 AM

Rob, us glass half empty fellas just want something to be cheerful about.
Posted By: Nimits

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 12:14 AM

Originally Posted By: robtek
Sometimes it makes me sad, that those people get the same gains from the updates as the stout supporters, despite their attitude.



What, are you supposed to be required to like the game before you get to play it?
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 12:20 AM

Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
The truth is, I really wanted the ability to deploy into Britain German FPS Para's disguised as Nuns, with explosive chastity belt 'power ups' and the ability to poison the British water supply with 'Holy water' which is actually really a powerful neurotoxin hidden in special 'bonus areas' of the map by fifth columnist Nazi sympathising traitors. The figure head of this organisation being SpitGirls evil twin sister, Helga the Horrid distinguishable by her wooden legs, and merciless, unseeing, glass eyes. Oh my gosh, the possibilities!


People who didn't want to read such a long post could'a missed this...

The internet has a suprising amount of literature on like subjects (it turns out) eg.:
"Everyone knows that nuns are secretly kick-ass ninjas. Thanks to the Sound of Music, we know that all Austrian nuns were trained in ninjitsu to fight the Nazis in the Second World War. What is not commonly known, however, is that for years now the Vatican has been training an elite squad of ninja assault nuns. [...] Even if you manage to derobe and disarm a ninja assault nun, their deadly martial-arts skills enable them to cut you apart with their bare hands, bene Gesserit Style. Thankfully, due to an unfortunate time loop with a parallel universe, the ninja assault nun does not exist yet. They can, however, be bought on Ebay. See - Ninja assault nuns preparing to sing 'the hills are alive', their terrifying battle chant."

Originally Posted By: HeinKill

Extensive market research has shown that what gamers want in a flight sim is dromedaries.

Then we can have MMOCR - massively multiplayer online camel racing.


Oh my! That would be awesome.

It'd never occurred to me until now - but it is one of those ideas which you know 'must be a good idea' them moment you see it!
*I'd* actually pay for a Camel racing sim.

Maybe there could be a Camel dance mini-game (I never really got into Camel dancing before).

Originally Posted By: Uriah
I liked what I saw. I can see the tank boys coming to attack my home field with some air cover. I have to help defend my own field.


It actually happened during the war a couple of times. I seem to recall some Ju-87Gs taking out the last light tanks of a Soviet armoured penetration group just as they reached the airfield. There was also the case of Bf-110s landing to use their gunners as support weapons for paratroopers during the Norway invasion...
Posted By: Biggles07

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 12:24 AM

Originally Posted By: Nimits
Originally Posted By: robtek
Sometimes it makes me sad, that those people get the same gains from the updates as the stout supporters, despite their attitude.



What, are you supposed to be required to like the game before you get to play it?


We wretched ingrates (AKA concerned and constructive critics, as opposed to the Sim equivalent of a Stepford Wives convention lol) are not worthy, Nimits. We must accept our place without argument, and repent of our folly....For not being particularly enamoured with half finished games, and 'Clown Car' MkIV Jeeps. Just what we always wanted. *cough, splutter*

biggrin


The internet has a suprising amount of literature on like subjects (it turns out) eg.:
"Everyone knows that nuns are secretly kick-ass ninjas. Thanks to the Sound of Music, we know that all Austrian nuns were trained in ninjitsu to fight the Nazis in the Second World War. What is not commonly known, however, is that for years now the Vatican has been training an elite squad of ninja assault nuns. [...] Even if you manage to derobe and disarm a ninja assault nun, their deadly martial-arts skills enable them to cut you apart with their bare hands, bene Gesserit Style. Thankfully, due to an unfortunate time loop with a parallel universe, the ninja assault nun does not exist yet. They can, however, be bought on Ebay. See - Ninja assault nuns preparing to sing 'the hills are alive', their terrifying battle chant."


You've got it nailed Av (almost), Ninja Paratroop Nazi Nuns FTW!.....Which was actually the next installment in the storyline, but requires a pre-purchase unlock code to experience. Lets not allow wanton creativity to get in the way of the fact that this is a business.

Still not sure how you managed to get your hands on the script. Hmmmm, time to call my agent, and possibly lawyer, methinks.

biggrin



Posted By: DaveP63

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 12:30 AM

Now about these dromedaries...Would they be the one hump variety or the two hump variety?
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 01:33 AM

Originally Posted By: DaveP63
Now about these dromedaries...Would they be the one hump variety or the two hump variety?


The community voted and decided on one hump. Adding the second hump would take to much time, thats desperately needed to fix the FM.
Posted By: Pudfark

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 01:36 AM

Originally Posted By: FearlessFrog
Originally Posted By: Pudfark
After reading the "animal" posts....?
I'd say that CloD has hit rock bottom...

Good Post Furbs....Seems like the warden is running the asylum here. elmo


Do you mean the inmates are running the asylum here rather than warden? The warden running the asylum is actually what's meant to happen I think.

Also, apologies if the jokes are a bit too much. I understand for some it is a serious matter, and not a laughing matter.


Salute FearlessFrog...I will continue to believe, that we all want the best outcome...Thanks
Posted By: csThor

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 06:22 AM

Originally Posted By: Avimimus
Originally Posted By: csThor
For starters PR has always been the red-headed stepchild of MG and with Luthier at the helm it's only gotten worse so I guess they don't want to invest more than the bare minimum of time.


Interesting CsThor, we've both been around for a long time - however, my view is a little different: I thought Oleg was usually brilliant in his personal style and PR back in the post-release heyday. Things just deteriorated after 2007...


I don't think this was a company strategy but Oleg's personal style. There was no "conscious thought" behind it, it was more like an instinctual thing since Oleg put too much "blood & sweat" into it. PR-wise Maddox Games was always not particularly creative - we never got more than screenshots and more or less cryptic statements, often less than substantial ones at that. They were never comparable to what Jason does at ROF (which I find most informative and upfront).
Posted By: Force10

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 06:30 AM

Originally Posted By: robtek
The "doom'n'gloom" - "glass half empty" party is even more present here, then in the 1c forum.

Sometimes it makes me sad, that those people get the same gains from the updates as the stout supporters, despite their attitude.

Imo, of course.


Ahh yes...robtek swoops in now and then with one of his "hit and run" posts that makes everyone feel all warm and fuzzy inside. It's a shame that it saddens you that opinions are allowed to be discussed, both positive and negative. Not everyone bought COD in the hopes that they would be able to drive a tank. It's kinda silly to discuss it in depth when the flight sim aspect of the game isn't up to snuff yet.

This is not the usual debate that has been done to death, this is a new issue about buying a flight sim and having it being turned into something else. It's going to be discussed, get over it...IMO
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 06:41 AM

Originally Posted By: csThor
Originally Posted By: Avimimus
Originally Posted By: csThor
For starters PR has always been the red-headed stepchild of MG and with Luthier at the helm it's only gotten worse so I guess they don't want to invest more than the bare minimum of time.


Interesting CsThor, we've both been around for a long time - however, my view is a little different: I thought Oleg was usually brilliant in his personal style and PR back in the post-release heyday. Things just deteriorated after 2007...


I don't think this was a company strategy but Oleg's personal style. There was no "conscious thought" behind it, it was more like an instinctual thing since Oleg put too much "blood & sweat" into it. PR-wise Maddox Games was always not particularly creative - we never got more than screenshots and more or less cryptic statements, often less than substantial ones at that. They were never comparable to what Jason does at ROF (which I find most informative and upfront).


Luthier definitely has a more confrontational style than Oleg had. I personally don't think thats a bad thing, although I preferred Oleg's style.

Jason bought the ROF franchise from the Russian developers and can communicate in English much better than the COD developers. Usually developments on a shoe string budget don't get into advertising, and advertising such an incomplete product would probably not be the best strategy at the moment. The original Il-2 didn't advertise either, but eventually cornered the WW2 combat flight sim market, and most of the market bought COD on reputation alone.

I can definitely see the new series start a serious advertising campaign in five to ten years, when they have developed a combined forces sim that they could market to a much larger audience, that might make the advertising costs worth while.
Posted By: KRT_Bong

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 07:02 AM

OMG I'm in spasms LMFAO dizzy I cant breathe.. frog you kill me.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 07:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Chivas
..
I can definitely see the new series start a serious advertising campaign in five to ten years, when they have developed a combined forces sim that they could market to a much larger audience, that might make the advertising costs worth while.


I think that'll be way too late, Luthier isn't so far ahead of others as he think.
Maybe ED applied the ground war on a more reasonable level? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81589

While I do see use for First-person-AAA, I'm not so sure about first-person-tanks.
Posted By: ATAG_Bliss

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 07:43 AM

Originally Posted By: Force10



This is not the usual debate that has been done to death, this is a new issue about buying a flight sim and having it being turned into something else. It's going to be discussed, get over it...IMO


Turned into something else? New issue? No wonder people are soo upset. No one even researched the title they bought in the 1st place. The ground war stuff has been in the works for years. Why do some of you people think the sim is magically changing from what the initial scope was? I really wish some people would take the time and at least research the sim before pounding their chest saying it's not what they paid for. If you didn't want drivable vehicles perhaps you should have complained about them 2 years ago, or even better, maybe you could've complained about it when you saw in the controls section was an area dedicated to just for vehicles. I mean, here's your sign lol.

All these forums are straight up comedy gold. Thanks to all of those that add to them.
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 08:27 AM

Originally Posted By: theOden
Originally Posted By: Chivas
..
I can definitely see the new series start a serious advertising campaign in five to ten years, when they have developed a combined forces sim that they could market to a much larger audience, that might make the advertising costs worth while.


I think that'll be way too late, Luthier isn't so far ahead of others as he think.
Maybe ED applied the ground war on a more reasonable level? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81589

While I do see use for First-person-AAA, I'm not so sure about first-person-tanks.


That is a modern warfare combined forces sim which isn't the market that the COD developer is interested in, or that most WW2 simmers are interested in. Time will tell if a combined forces sim would work on the new IL-2 engine, the maps and terrain will be decent and large, but it depends on the ability of the game engine to provide the features that would attract WW2 tankers.
Posted By: Trooper117

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 08:29 AM

Forget Oleg, he's gone, and I don't care one jot that his 'vision' was to have some battlefield 1942 utopia.
What I wanted, and paid for was a Battle of Britain experience that has been pushed aside as unworking for many, for some idiotic all singing all dancing 'let's play war' game..
I have followed the IL2 experience from day one and have been a loyal fan and have bought everything they have produced. But the reason I parted from my hard earned cash, and willingly, was for my love of WWII 'aviation'.
Looking at other forums I know for a fact I'm not alone. The IL2 experience has taken a very meaningful turn in the wrong direction, and sooner or later, an enterprising body will jump into the void they are creating and will steal the crown.
Posted By: Force10

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 08:33 AM

Originally Posted By: ATAG_Bliss
Originally Posted By: Force10



This is not the usual debate that has been done to death, this is a new issue about buying a flight sim and having it being turned into something else. It's going to be discussed, get over it...IMO


Turned into something else? New issue? No wonder people are soo upset. No one even researched the title they bought in the 1st place. The ground war stuff has been in the works for years. Why do some of you people think the sim is magically changing from what the initial scope was? I really wish some people would take the time and at least research the sim before pounding their chest saying it's not what they paid for. If you didn't want drivable vehicles perhaps you should have complained about them 2 years ago, or even better, maybe you could've complained about it when you saw in the controls section was an area dedicated to just for vehicles. I mean, here's your sign lol.

All these forums are straight up comedy gold. Thanks to all of those that add to them.


Here's a radical thought: Maybe people are upset that they are working on making it a tank sim when they haven't even made it a combat flight sim yet. They are spending money for people to code the drivable vehicles when maybe they could have used the funds to get the flight sim part working. Fix the freakin' flight sim part first, then they can make a drivable tractor that you can import your Wii avatar into for all I care.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 08:51 AM

Bliss, when we get the patch and it fixes the CTDs, it adds historical FMs and a AI that makes single player worth playing then people(me included) will be much more welcoming to these "other things".
Even if he told us the CTDs have been fixed(why havent they?) and the FMs fixed(again, why cant they?) and the AI improved it would of helped allay peoples worries.

They have had almost full year, we should have a working flight sim with historical FMs if nothing else right?



On a side note, did the tracers look better in that last vid, less lasers? <------------ positive smile
Posted By: FIScott

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 11:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Brigstock
Originally Posted By: TROOPER117
Smoother and a more stable game will be a step in the right direction to be sure..
But to show yet another video of how the ground forces aspect is developing, when they have acknowledged they aren't even sure if it will make it into the finished game is a non event..
We hopefully wanted to see how the 'flight simulation' side is improving.. Is it me? Am I assuming too much by wanting to see some actual air combat simulation progress?.. if so I apologize in advance.


It ain't just you....


I think for the purposes of the last 3 weeks of updates it was never intended to be anything but a non event. It is clear enough that they have had hell on trying to put together the latest update that, lets face it, is all but a game re-write. The pressure to say something, anything, was mounting as the peasants were revolting so we just had three weeks of fluff and they got a bit of breathing space.

At least they are learning how to handle their crowd.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 11:22 AM

Originally Posted By: FIScott


At least they are learning how to handle their crowd.


Some of us notice the smoke and mirrors.
Posted By: commorange

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 02:52 PM

I hope they dont forget the killstreak rewards this time. it will be so cool to get a care package for shooting down 3 planes. cheers
Posted By: Bokononist

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 03:02 PM

Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
Originally Posted By: FIScott


At least they are learning how to handle their crowd.


Some of us notice the smoke and mirrors.


As I see it, the community asked for regular updates, the devs listened and delivered said updates.
I would call that a good result for those that wanted them, and a good sign that the developers are actually listening to what the community wants.
As for all the speculating that goes on after these updates well, thats all it is, speculation, nothing to worry about.
I'm going to reserve my judgement, good bad or otherwise until the beta patch arrives.
In the mean time I'm going to fly my underpowered, inadequately modelled yet somehow immensly fun Spit 1A. xwing
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 03:15 PM


Originally Posted By: csThor
Originally Posted By: Avimimus
Originally Posted By: csThor
For starters PR has always been the red-headed stepchild of MG and with Luthier at the helm it's only gotten worse so I guess they don't want to invest more than the bare minimum of time.


Interesting CsThor, we've both been around for a long time - however, my view is a little different: I thought Oleg was usually brilliant in his personal style and PR back in the post-release heyday. Things just deteriorated after 2007...


I don't think this was a company strategy but Oleg's personal style. There was no "conscious thought" behind it, it was more like an instinctual thing since Oleg put too much "blood & sweat" into it. PR-wise Maddox Games was always not particularly creative - we never got more than screenshots and more or less cryptic statements, often less than substantial ones at that. They were never comparable to what Jason does at ROF (which I find most informative and upfront).


Yes, I suppose a lot of it was indeed personal style. He is very charismatic in his own way (in part because we don't always understand what he is saying wink )

Originally Posted By: TROOPER117
Forget Oleg, he's gone, and I don't care one jot that his 'vision' was to have some battlefield 1942 utopia.


Never! Viva la visión! We will see it fulfilled someday!
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 03:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Pudfark
After reading the "animal" posts....?
I'd say that CloD has hit rock bottom...

Good Post Furbs....Seems like the warden is running the asylum here. elmo


Yes, well - does this mean that we're a parliament "the only madhouse run by the inmates")? wink

I'm sorry if the sense of humour is a bit too much - but I do swear that somewhere, deep inside of me, there is a hidden little place which silently screams for me to request 'pet donkey' as a feature.

Originally Posted By: Chivas
Later in the thread BlackSix indicates there will be a collision model for the Trees in the future. Its highly unlikely that the next patch will address all the game play issues, but it should be a good start.


I've moved from half-believing it is possible to four-fifths believing it is possible - I'm euphoric. biggrin

You better not be wrong Chivs'... wink

Originally Posted By: theOden
While I do see use for First-person-AAA, I'm not so sure about first-person-tanks.


Well they have the ballistics model, turrets & sights, damage models for vehicles and the terrain/graphics engine. So, they can produce a pretty neat toy (~on par with Panzer Commander) for very little effort.

From a software development point of view it makes sense. It is like gold from lead, the philosopher's stone - they can produce product for very little additional development cost, while most of the work is focused on improving the engine.
Posted By: bisher

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 03:23 PM

Originally Posted By: ATAG_Snapper
Originally Posted By: bisher
Could you condense that Furbs, way too many words


"WTF?"


I wuz just teasing, though when I see muliple paragraphs in a post my eyes do glaze over

Thanks Fearless nice condensation, %30 seems smack on biggrin
Posted By: VonBarb.

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 03:37 PM

Interesting, so the Black Death track is no longer working after the last code modifications they've implemented... What if the same happens to their work on ground objects when they (finally) start working on the parts of the code that affect the flight simulation aspect of CoD ?
Will they trash the ground warfare, or scale it back and do some more work in it, hence making the current progress somewhat of a waste, or will they be looking at ways to reduce the impact of further code improvement on the tanks, hence sacrificing the flight sim aspect for the novelty value of being able to drive a Panzer GTA-style across Essex ?

Doesn't make much sense for the studio and their reputation as simulation elitists to be adding an half-assed arcade tank driving aspect to CoD when there's still much to do on the air combat side... For that matter, how much sense does a WW2 tank game make without infantry ?

It almost looks like someone up the corporate hierarchy is trying to turn CoD into some kind of Battlefield or ArmA copy. March on Ubi's HQ with torches and pitchforks anyone ?

Such a joke, though something's telling me I won't be laughing at the punchline.

Cheers

Nico
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 04:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Chivas
Originally Posted By: DaveP63
Now about these dromedaries...Would they be the one hump variety or the two hump variety?


The community voted and decided on one hump. Adding the second hump would take to much time, thats desperately needed to fix the FM.


You start with a one humper. There is a double hump powerup. The double hump powerup enables the AAA loadout.




H
Posted By: bisher

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 04:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Bokononist
Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
Originally Posted By: FIScott


At least they are learning how to handle their crowd.


Some of us notice the smoke and mirrors.


As I see it, the community asked for regular updates, the devs listened and delivered said updates.
I would call that a good result for those that wanted them, and a good sign that the developers are actually listening to what the community wants.
As for all the speculating that goes on after these updates well, thats all it is, speculation, nothing to worry about.
I'm going to reserve my judgement, good bad or otherwise until the beta patch arrives.
In the mean time I'm going to fly my underpowered, inadequately modelled yet somehow immensly fun Spit 1A. xwing


agreed Bokononist. The updates have been helpfull in that they elimiated any speculation as to whether the sim was still being worked on. We continue to speculate
Posted By: Bokononist

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 05:26 PM

Originally Posted By: HeinKill

You start with a one humper. There is a double hump powerup. The double hump powerup enables the AAA loadout.




H


I hope that gun doesn't have to much recoil, with the position of the butt it could have eye-watering consequences for the rider Wounded
Posted By: Lixma

Re: Friday update - 02/25/12 06:32 PM

I think we can all agree that the disastrous first year of COD's life has, on this day, been substantially mitigated on learning that there exists a website called camelphotos.com.

And I've every confidence that the 'Camel Hub of the Web' will be my first port of call whenever I find myself in pressing need for a dromedarian image or two.



Carry on.
Posted By: Rodney

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 01:00 PM

Has luthier got an email address? I'd love to share my vision of the future of flightsims with him.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 01:31 PM

Agreed Rodney, wouldn't mind having a chat with him myself.
Posted By: Trooper117

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 01:51 PM

And I can guess exactly what your first question would be.. smile
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 02:50 PM

"Spitgirl.......really?" screwy
Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 04:04 PM

It is quite the logical hint - get your girlfriend or wife to sit on your lap while flying (re-enacting the scene) and the sim becomes a romantic evening (rather than competition). IMHO, it doesn't actually work, but it is a nice sentiment on his part.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 04:34 PM

LOL going to try that tonight Avimimus, il let you know how it goes.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 06:05 PM

Originally Posted By: Avimimus
It is quite the logical hint - get your girlfriend or wife to sit on your lap while flying (re-enacting the scene) and the sim becomes a romantic evening (rather than competition). IMHO, it doesn't actually work, but it is a nice sentiment on his part.


Oh come on, Spitgirl was the dumbest idea ever seen in a sim.

Should have been Spitcamel. That would have been true love.

Posted By: Avimimus

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 08:56 PM

HeinKill, the entire Western and Eastern world will surely rush to judge your love - so I'll do you the favour of not joining in with them. While, I'm not personally attracted in that way - I'll concede, at least, that they are admirable creatures.
Posted By: Trooper117

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 09:07 PM

THAT MAN!!.. GET YOUR FLIPPIN EARS CLEANED!.. (have you seen how filthy they are??) The camel looks more hygenic.
Posted By: HeinKill

Re: Friday update - 02/26/12 10:18 PM

I have my new Battle for Moscow Simpit ready boys!



And here, exclusive to SimHQ visitors, I have a preview of the alpha for the next 1C Flight Sim in development, "Battle for Bengazi" showing lifelike lighting and models, and fully functional attack camel (hull down).

Posted By: PV1

Re: Friday update - 02/27/12 08:00 AM


Speaking of Spitgirl, I did a forum search and there's surprisingly little discussion.
I found this image from one of Heinkill's threads:




This looks rather like what I get with the in-cockpit view, but the black region forms a
ring cropping out about 2/3s of the screen, all the way around, ie it is impossible to see
enough to fly. Is this what everybody sees, and is there any way to move ones view position
forward, presumably to emerge from the centre of the flying helmet which engulfs one in this
view but no other?

Even if this is just a joke, someone ought to have taken the time to make it work right...
Posted By: PV1

Re: Friday update - 02/27/12 08:58 AM

OK, I didn't mean to interrupt the camel theme which developed while
I was off searching on spitgirl, so here is an image (linked out,
as it isn't one of mine, and I seem to recall that such items aren't allowed
to be inline here) sort of in keeping with the general topic
http://michaelexile.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/moscoso66cw.jpg?w=500&h=453

Well, I know there are much better images out there, some of them
also moscoso's, but I can't find them without a much longer search.

Posted By: commorange

Re: Friday update - 02/27/12 10:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Avimimus
I find this quite exciting - I figure it increases the probability that they'll model collisions with trees... (given time)

I got Pacific Fighters because I wanted to try flying the Ki-43, but more importantly, because it would lower the daylight muzzleflashes on my Mig-3... The dev's can't please everyone: If they announced they were making a submarine sim - I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd still be excited to have AI submarines which dive when under attack wink

IMHO, at some point you have to decide between a glass-half-full or a glass-half-empty. The first is more fun.


Ah the Ki-43 Oscar. Possibly the most maneuverable fighter of WW2, but much too slow . You can give P-40's and Wildcats a handful but against later
allied planes its hopelessly outclassed. Also only armed with two weak MG's. Aim for the Engine or cockpit and hope to critically damage the engine or pilot.. I could be wrong but American Ace Neal Kearby in a P-47 was reported to have been shot down by an Oscar that got a lucky burst into his cockpit. (But it might have been a Ki-61 Tony that got him). I built a scale model Oscar once. Such a tiny cockpit. Those Japanese Army pilots had to have been jockey size to fit in it. The could only have weighed 130-140 lbs tops and not taller than about 5' 6" if that. Online I had some fun with it but extreme aggravation. For 20 minutes I flew circles around some guy in a Hellcat till I ran out of ammo and had to RTB. As you might guess the jerk followed me all the way back and killed me when I was trying to land. What a hero.
Posted By: commorange

Re: Friday update - 02/27/12 10:09 AM

Originally Posted By: Para_Bellum
I envy you for your optimism, Aimimus. I really do.

I'd actually be happy if I had a glass half full. At the moment I feel like I've ordered a glass of water, got a tambourine instead and get told that I'll get a pair of sandals to go with that sometime in the future. That's probably great if you like tambourines and sandals but I just want a glass of water thank you.



wink


I feel much the same Para. Except I feel like I booked a flight to Russia in a state of the art Tupolev jet airliner seated in first class with a 5 course meal. But the airliner turned out to be a Cardboard box and the meal was a slice of moldy bread and warm water.
Posted By: Aces High 2

Re: Friday update - 02/27/12 10:30 AM

Originally Posted By: commorange

I feel like I booked a flight to Russia in a state of the art Tupolev jet airliner seated in first class with a 5 course meal. But the airliner turned out to be a Cardboard box and the meal was a slice of moldy bread and warm water.


You've obviously not flown with "Sleezy Jet" lately mate biggrin

Best regards

Aces
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/27/12 07:00 PM

Originally Posted By: commorange
Originally Posted By: Avimimus
I find this quite exciting - I figure it increases the probability that they'll model collisions with trees... (given time)

I got Pacific Fighters because I wanted to try flying the Ki-43, but more importantly, because it would lower the daylight muzzleflashes on my Mig-3... The dev's can't please everyone: If they announced they were making a submarine sim - I wouldn't be thrilled, but I'd still be excited to have AI submarines which dive when under attack wink

IMHO, at some point you have to decide between a glass-half-full or a glass-half-empty. The first is more fun.


Ah the Ki-43 Oscar. Possibly the most maneuverable fighter of WW2, but much too slow . You can give P-40's and Wildcats a handful but against later
allied planes its hopelessly outclassed. Also only armed with two weak MG's. Aim for the Engine or cockpit and hope to critically damage the engine or pilot.. I could be wrong but American Ace Neal Kearby in a P-47 was reported to have been shot down by an Oscar that got a lucky burst into his cockpit. (But it might have been a Ki-61 Tony that got him). I built a scale model Oscar once. Such a tiny cockpit. Those Japanese Army pilots had to have been jockey size to fit in it. The could only have weighed 130-140 lbs tops and not taller than about 5' 6" if that. Online I had some fun with it but extreme aggravation. For 20 minutes I flew circles around some guy in a Hellcat till I ran out of ammo and had to RTB. As you might guess the jerk followed me all the way back and killed me when I was trying to land. What a hero.


War is hell, you should have saved some of that ammo to protect yourself on the way home.
Posted By: JAMF

Re: Friday update - 02/27/12 11:32 PM

Big advantage to manable flak guns: you can take down the aircraft you love to hate.

Steam loc blowing up: my no.1 request. Now just one example of a bullet ridled boiler geysering all steam without blowing up and we'd have more reasons to attack the "little engine tbat could" to see if the end result is different.

When will vehicles have momentum, I wonder? I hope someday they will move further after being destroyed.
Posted By: Biggles07

Re: Friday update - 02/28/12 12:19 PM

Originally Posted By: JAMF
Big advantage to manable flak guns: you can take down the aircraft you love to hate.

Steam loc blowing up: my no.1 request. Now just one example of a bullet ridled boiler geysering all steam without blowing up and we'd have more reasons to attack the "little engine tbat could" to see if the end result is different.

When will vehicles have momentum, I wonder? I hope someday they will move further after being destroyed.


JAMF mate, the locomotive 'Geyser of steam' explosion thing has been in since day one, not a new addition....does look quite good though. smile I agree it would be great if they could make it like RoF does too, with damage causing steam leaks from the engine as well. The vehicles have always had an at least rudimentary physics model. I remember one of the first things I did in the FMB was to set up stationary trucks and strafe them which is always fun....but their behaviour at the time was funny and bizarre (sometimes being blasted 50ft into the air, and unrealistically 50ft along the ground from .303's etc...fuel truck or not). I mentioned this in bug threads at the time. Haven't checked to see if later patches fixed this, it was very early on.

Looks like they will be improving this anyways, which is good news I suppose. More bothered about the planes however tbh, hehe. smile

Heres a loc steam explosion from way back last year.



Looking forward to the patch, hope its this Friday....I get the impression we may possibly even get a mid week surprise. *twiddles thumbs*. Hoping this friday at the latest. Whats another week or so though, if not. smile
Posted By: Ajay

Re: Friday update - 02/28/12 01:54 PM

i'm still freaking out that there is a camelphotos.com.
Posted By: Bokononist

Re: Friday update - 02/28/12 06:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Ajay
i'm still freaking out that there is a camelphotos.com.


Yes, could be a new niche market for a realistic camel sim, theres been nothing since Jeff Minters 'Attack of the Mutant Camels'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IHc7XqJeTw

Admittedly Llamatron did follow on several platforms including my beloved Atari ST but I think that forked the market, all of the camel purists were furious at the decision to use Llamas instead of camels for the 'sequel' after that there was no way back...



Until now maybe..........
Posted By: JAMF

Re: Friday update - 02/28/12 08:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Biggles07
I agree it would be great if they could make it like RoF does too, with damage causing steam leaks from the engine as well. The vehicles have always had an at least rudimentary physics model. I remember one of the first things I did in the FMB was to set up stationary trucks and strafe them which is always fun....but their behaviour at the time was funny and bizarre (sometimes being blasted 50ft into the air, and unrealistically 50ft along the ground from .303's etc...fuel truck or not). I mentioned this in bug threads at the time.


Ah. Not flown much. I'm one of those that bought the game on "day one" and fires it up ever so often to see if they managed to get it running smooth on Eyefinity. I then turn it of again til the next patch.


Pet peeve is the destroyed vehicles coming to an instant halt, so it's missing that part of the
rudimentary physics. They just appear to replace the whole model with the damaged model on the spot where it was destroyed. No transfer of speed vector. (with a new deceleration added).
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/28/12 11:47 PM

Originally Posted By: JAMF
Originally Posted By: Biggles07
I agree it would be great if they could make it like RoF does too, with damage causing steam leaks from the engine as well. The vehicles have always had an at least rudimentary physics model. I remember one of the first things I did in the FMB was to set up stationary trucks and strafe them which is always fun....but their behaviour at the time was funny and bizarre (sometimes being blasted 50ft into the air, and unrealistically 50ft along the ground from .303's etc...fuel truck or not). I mentioned this in bug threads at the time.


Ah. Not flown much. I'm one of those that bought the game on "day one" and fires it up ever so often to see if they managed to get it running smooth on Eyefinity. I then turn it of again til the next patch.


Pet peeve is the destroyed vehicles coming to an instant halt, so it's missing that part of the
rudimentary physics. They just appear to replace the whole model with the damaged model on the spot where it was destroyed. No transfer of speed vector. (with a new deceleration added).


When you read the update about the vehicles you will come across this statement from BlackSix.

"We have also made other changes since the version in which the video was made. The damage model for the vehicles was improved. Destroyed ground objects have inertia and continue moving after death. Component damage system (tracks, crew, gunners etc) has also been improved. Unfortunately due to yesterday being an official holiday we simply had no time to make additional footage and splice it into the video" http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=29967
Posted By: FIScott

Re: Friday update - 02/29/12 04:22 AM

It takes about 10 minuts from the release of an update post for the pertinent facts to be lost in a sea of opinions and 'old chestnuts' getting a public roasting again. It is indications like the physics re-work for ground vehicles that actually matter in terms of where the developers are trying to take the sim.

I've pondered (admittedly not extensively due to having a life) the ground vehicles inclusion and by the looks of the clip it reminds me a lot of Red Orchestra/ Darkest Hour. I had many hours enjoyment in those games so if I can do it again at some stage in the future in a decent flightsim I would be happy. I don't think I would be alone in that by any stretch of the imagination and I do not think that the wave of anti tank sentiment is an objection to that concept. Instead I think that the larger proportion of those daft enough to dip their toes in the toxic swamps of Cliffs of Dover forums are holding their breath for the major update that we all hope will set this game on the road to success. Anything that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to derail or delay that is an instant target for hostility.
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 02/29/12 08:06 AM

Originally Posted By: FIScott
It takes about 10 minuts from the release of an update post for the pertinent facts to be lost in a sea of opinions and 'old chestnuts' getting a public roasting again. It is indications like the physics re-work for ground vehicles that actually matter in terms of where the developers are trying to take the sim.

I've pondered (admittedly not extensively due to having a life) the ground vehicles inclusion and by the looks of the clip it reminds me a lot of Red Orchestra/ Darkest Hour. I had many hours enjoyment in those games so if I can do it again at some stage in the future in a decent flightsim I would be happy. I don't think I would be alone in that by any stretch of the imagination and I do not think that the wave of anti tank sentiment is an objection to that concept. Instead I think that the larger proportion of those daft enough to dip their toes in the toxic swamps of Cliffs of Dover forums are holding their breath for the major update that we all hope will set this game on the road to success. Anything that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to derail or delay that is an instant target for hostility.



This pertinent fact about the "Destroyed ground objects have inertia" was in the first post in the latest update thread.

I agree some people could be concerned that the ground vehicle detail could take away from the air combat detail. Personally I don't see it as a concern.

Oleg has hinted a few times on the direction he wants to take his new game engine. Heres a post from kendo65 where he post a translated Oleg interview.


Originally Posted by kendo65
Regarding the debate on controllable tanks, AA, etc, I came across a pdf file I'd saved with an interview with Oleg from Feb 2009. It's an English translation of an interview originally posted on a Russian site - spread-wings.ru (?). English translation is by Luthier

http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/154/1/

Although obviously out of date there is some interesting talk about the goals they had in mind back then about SOW/COD future development. I can't post the pdf as it's 2.66MB (don't know if the pdf is still available online?), but here are some interesting excerpts (my highlights in bold)

Q: You’ve stated many times in previous interviews that BoB will be drastically different from the
Il-2 series. What do you mean by that?

Oleg: Not a very easy question to answer, but I’ll try to respond the best I can without divulging some secret information.

1. The engine and the system we’re developing is built from the ground up to allow future expansions. Each new product can be stand-alone, or it can plug in with the others starting with BoB, following the success of Pacific Fighters which proved that this model can be viable.

2. We’re developing a system that is more than just a flight sim, but can be a sub sim, PT boat sim, tank sim, helicopter sim, etc. By the way, we just might have a flyable autogyro in BoB.

3. We’re also writing a completely new, drastically improved online code with multiple modes and features. It can even support a server-based MMO with a monthly fee. This of course won’t happen with BoB itself, but is possible on its engine, possibly made by other teams that further develop into this direction.

4. Quality level for ground and air objects is ages beyond what was one with Il-2. I don’t think that such a huge leap will be possible after BoB; the only changes that can happen is increase in polycount or texture size, or more detailed interior details. Even Il-2 was often used as a reference by other developers, and BoB will even have uses for movies.

5. We’re working on an add-on and expansion module that will not affect the online playing field. After BoB is released we plan to publish a set of tools that will allow end-users to:
* Create new planes;
* Create new vehicles, tanks, ships, etc;
* Create new static objects, such as building, bridges, equipment, etc;
* Create new maps, with limits on total size. We’ll leave large maps for ourselves, for our own new sims.


Q: And now Oleg, please go into more details on your thoughts of the future of Storm of War
compared to Il-2, given the potential you’ve built into the engine from the start.

Oleg: Considering what I’ve said already, and given an initial commercial success of BoB, here’s what I see:

1. Some number of developers internationally that worked with MSFS, and probably a large part of them too, will convert to our side. This is especially to be expected considering the recent closing of Aces studio. So these add-on developers might just start making add-ons for Storm of War. I think this might even include jets, including modern ones. At the very least I would expect someone to do Vietnam, not to mention WWI. This
should happen too. Generally WWI aircraft are easier to model and program, since they don’t have such complex aerodynamics, no retractable landing gear, propeller pitch, and other advanced devices. There’s also no radio, which means there’s no need to develop and record radio chatter.

2. Korea, in conjunction with RRG. Its development is now in background mode. Their
team is now working with us finishing up planes for BoB, and also modeling ships.

3. Africa, Malta, USSR. These are most appealing choices for us. Even though we know for sure that the Pacific is the most interesting subject matter for the international market, besides Battle of Britain that is. Generally the Eastern Front is a bit easier for us to do since we have loads more data on it, and there’s less variety of vehicles and aircraft to model than all the other fronts.

4. Continuing combat around the English Channel, which will largely be made via expansions since we’ll already have the main map.

5. Cooperation with other teams to create other games (perhaps by selling the engine). For example, an MMO with controllable soldiers and submarines etc. Or even a space sim around planet surfaces with somewhat realistic physics.

6. Console variants with simplified features.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 06:21 AM

Oleg said alot of things back in the day Chivas, alot has changed since then. I bet he didn't say "by the way im bailing out of all this on day 1 of release"

You can take all of that with a pinch of very Russian salt.
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 07:45 AM

Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
Oleg said alot of things back in the day Chivas, alot has changed since then. I bet he didn't say "by the way im bailing out of all this on day 1 of release"

You can take all of that with a pinch of very Russian salt.


Oleg has kept us in the loop much more than he should have, but the business model and what they were trying to achieve is still the same. It may be a pinch of very Russian salt in your eyes, but how is that WW2 aircombat sim being developed in your country doing?
Posted By: DaveP63

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 10:51 AM

All of this conjecture is well and good, but what happens if this business with the crewable stuff doesn't go over? If it doesn't bring in the flood of new players and their cash because it's "too hard" or "too arcade"? Will it have been a huge waste of time and effort? Just because we assume that it will go over, doesn't mean that it will.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 11:24 AM

That's indeed a risk they are into DaveP63,
In my little universe as a projectleader I'd put all goodies on hold after this extreme mess of a launch and thrown all possible resources into getting Dover accepted by the fan-base.

I have this feeling they lost more potential flyers from online squads than they'll achive with drivable tanks.

We'll get there but in a very slow pace.
Posted By: cheesehawk

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Chivas
Originally Posted By: FIScott
It takes about 10 minuts from the release of an update post for the pertinent facts to be lost in a sea of opinions and 'old chestnuts' getting a public roasting again. It is indications like the physics re-work for ground vehicles that actually matter in terms of where the developers are trying to take the sim.

I've pondered (admittedly not extensively due to having a life) the ground vehicles inclusion and by the looks of the clip it reminds me a lot of Red Orchestra/ Darkest Hour. I had many hours enjoyment in those games so if I can do it again at some stage in the future in a decent flightsim I would be happy. I don't think I would be alone in that by any stretch of the imagination and I do not think that the wave of anti tank sentiment is an objection to that concept. Instead I think that the larger proportion of those daft enough to dip their toes in the toxic swamps of Cliffs of Dover forums are holding their breath for the major update that we all hope will set this game on the road to success. Anything that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to derail or delay that is an instant target for hostility.



This pertinent fact about the "Destroyed ground objects have inertia" was in the first post in the latest update thread.

I agree some people could be concerned that the ground vehicle detail could take away from the air combat detail. Personally I don't see it as a concern.

Oleg has hinted a few times on the direction he wants to take his new game engine. Heres a post from kendo65 where he post a translated Oleg interview.


Originally Posted by kendo65
Regarding the debate on controllable tanks, AA, etc, I came across a pdf file I'd saved with an interview with Oleg from Feb 2009. It's an English translation of an interview originally posted on a Russian site - spread-wings.ru (?). English translation is by Luthier

http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/154/1/

Although obviously out of date there is some interesting talk about the goals they had in mind back then about SOW/COD future development. I can't post the pdf as it's 2.66MB (don't know if the pdf is still available online?), but here are some interesting excerpts (my highlights in bold)

Q: You’ve stated many times in previous interviews that BoB will be drastically different from the
Il-2 series. What do you mean by that?

Oleg: Not a very easy question to answer, but I’ll try to respond the best I can without divulging some secret information.

1. The engine and the system we’re developing is built from the ground up to allow future expansions. Each new product can be stand-alone, or it can plug in with the others starting with BoB, following the success of Pacific Fighters which proved that this model can be viable.

2. We’re developing a system that is more than just a flight sim, but can be a sub sim, PT boat sim, tank sim, helicopter sim, etc. By the way, we just might have a flyable autogyro in BoB.

3. We’re also writing a completely new, drastically improved online code with multiple modes and features. It can even support a server-based MMO with a monthly fee. This of course won’t happen with BoB itself, but is possible on its engine, possibly made by other teams that further develop into this direction.

4. Quality level for ground and air objects is ages beyond what was one with Il-2. I don’t think that such a huge leap will be possible after BoB; the only changes that can happen is increase in polycount or texture size, or more detailed interior details. Even Il-2 was often used as a reference by other developers, and BoB will even have uses for movies.

5. We’re working on an add-on and expansion module that will not affect the online playing field. After BoB is released we plan to publish a set of tools that will allow end-users to:
* Create new planes;
* Create new vehicles, tanks, ships, etc;
* Create new static objects, such as building, bridges, equipment, etc;
* Create new maps, with limits on total size. We’ll leave large maps for ourselves, for our own new sims.


Q: And now Oleg, please go into more details on your thoughts of the future of Storm of War
compared to Il-2, given the potential you’ve built into the engine from the start.

Oleg: Considering what I’ve said already, and given an initial commercial success of BoB, here’s what I see:

1. Some number of developers internationally that worked with MSFS, and probably a large part of them too, will convert to our side. This is especially to be expected considering the recent closing of Aces studio. So these add-on developers might just start making add-ons for Storm of War. I think this might even include jets, including modern ones. At the very least I would expect someone to do Vietnam, not to mention WWI. This
should happen too. Generally WWI aircraft are easier to model and program, since they don’t have such complex aerodynamics, no retractable landing gear, propeller pitch, and other advanced devices. There’s also no radio, which means there’s no need to develop and record radio chatter.

2. Korea, in conjunction with RRG. Its development is now in background mode. Their
team is now working with us finishing up planes for BoB, and also modeling ships.

3. Africa, Malta, USSR. These are most appealing choices for us. Even though we know for sure that the Pacific is the most interesting subject matter for the international market, besides Battle of Britain that is. Generally the Eastern Front is a bit easier for us to do since we have loads more data on it, and there’s less variety of vehicles and aircraft to model than all the other fronts.

4. Continuing combat around the English Channel, which will largely be made via expansions since we’ll already have the main map.

5. Cooperation with other teams to create other games (perhaps by selling the engine). For example, an MMO with controllable soldiers and submarines etc. Or even a space sim around planet surfaces with somewhat realistic physics.

6. Console variants with simplified features.


You do realize this is no longer Oleg's company, run by Oleg, or headed by Oleg right? This new bunch does not have the track record earned by Oleg in my book.

Now they are nearly 1 year in, and still no look at FMs, AI, CTD, stupid DM (1 wing flying), but instead we get screens of IL-2s, and crewable tanks...

Chivas is like the last guy arguing the earth is still flat....
Posted By: bisher

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 04:30 PM

Okay Icarus, but we will hold you to it. If we find out you are flying this sim post patch, we'll have to report you wink

Or do you mean given up on speculating ?
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: cheesehawk
Originally Posted By: Chivas
Originally Posted By: FIScott
It takes about 10 minuts from the release of an update post for the pertinent facts to be lost in a sea of opinions and 'old chestnuts' getting a public roasting again. It is indications like the physics re-work for ground vehicles that actually matter in terms of where the developers are trying to take the sim.

I've pondered (admittedly not extensively due to having a life) the ground vehicles inclusion and by the looks of the clip it reminds me a lot of Red Orchestra/ Darkest Hour. I had many hours enjoyment in those games so if I can do it again at some stage in the future in a decent flightsim I would be happy. I don't think I would be alone in that by any stretch of the imagination and I do not think that the wave of anti tank sentiment is an objection to that concept. Instead I think that the larger proportion of those daft enough to dip their toes in the toxic swamps of Cliffs of Dover forums are holding their breath for the major update that we all hope will set this game on the road to success. Anything that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to derail or delay that is an instant target for hostility.



This pertinent fact about the "Destroyed ground objects have inertia" was in the first post in the latest update thread.

I agree some people could be concerned that the ground vehicle detail could take away from the air combat detail. Personally I don't see it as a concern.

Oleg has hinted a few times on the direction he wants to take his new game engine. Heres a post from kendo65 where he post a translated Oleg interview.


Originally Posted by kendo65
Regarding the debate on controllable tanks, AA, etc, I came across a pdf file I'd saved with an interview with Oleg from Feb 2009. It's an English translation of an interview originally posted on a Russian site - spread-wings.ru (?). English translation is by Luthier

http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/154/1/

Although obviously out of date there is some interesting talk about the goals they had in mind back then about SOW/COD future development. I can't post the pdf as it's 2.66MB (don't know if the pdf is still available online?), but here are some interesting excerpts (my highlights in bold)

Q: You’ve stated many times in previous interviews that BoB will be drastically different from the
Il-2 series. What do you mean by that?

Oleg: Not a very easy question to answer, but I’ll try to respond the best I can without divulging some secret information.

1. The engine and the system we’re developing is built from the ground up to allow future expansions. Each new product can be stand-alone, or it can plug in with the others starting with BoB, following the success of Pacific Fighters which proved that this model can be viable.

2. We’re developing a system that is more than just a flight sim, but can be a sub sim, PT boat sim, tank sim, helicopter sim, etc. By the way, we just might have a flyable autogyro in BoB.

3. We’re also writing a completely new, drastically improved online code with multiple modes and features. It can even support a server-based MMO with a monthly fee. This of course won’t happen with BoB itself, but is possible on its engine, possibly made by other teams that further develop into this direction.

4. Quality level for ground and air objects is ages beyond what was one with Il-2. I don’t think that such a huge leap will be possible after BoB; the only changes that can happen is increase in polycount or texture size, or more detailed interior details. Even Il-2 was often used as a reference by other developers, and BoB will even have uses for movies.

5. We’re working on an add-on and expansion module that will not affect the online playing field. After BoB is released we plan to publish a set of tools that will allow end-users to:
* Create new planes;
* Create new vehicles, tanks, ships, etc;
* Create new static objects, such as building, bridges, equipment, etc;
* Create new maps, with limits on total size. We’ll leave large maps for ourselves, for our own new sims.


Q: And now Oleg, please go into more details on your thoughts of the future of Storm of War
compared to Il-2, given the potential you’ve built into the engine from the start.

Oleg: Considering what I’ve said already, and given an initial commercial success of BoB, here’s what I see:

1. Some number of developers internationally that worked with MSFS, and probably a large part of them too, will convert to our side. This is especially to be expected considering the recent closing of Aces studio. So these add-on developers might just start making add-ons for Storm of War. I think this might even include jets, including modern ones. At the very least I would expect someone to do Vietnam, not to mention WWI. This
should happen too. Generally WWI aircraft are easier to model and program, since they don’t have such complex aerodynamics, no retractable landing gear, propeller pitch, and other advanced devices. There’s also no radio, which means there’s no need to develop and record radio chatter.

2. Korea, in conjunction with RRG. Its development is now in background mode. Their
team is now working with us finishing up planes for BoB, and also modeling ships.

3. Africa, Malta, USSR. These are most appealing choices for us. Even though we know for sure that the Pacific is the most interesting subject matter for the international market, besides Battle of Britain that is. Generally the Eastern Front is a bit easier for us to do since we have loads more data on it, and there’s less variety of vehicles and aircraft to model than all the other fronts.

4. Continuing combat around the English Channel, which will largely be made via expansions since we’ll already have the main map.

5. Cooperation with other teams to create other games (perhaps by selling the engine). For example, an MMO with controllable soldiers and submarines etc. Or even a space sim around planet surfaces with somewhat realistic physics.

6. Console variants with simplified features.


You do realize this is no longer Oleg's company, run by Oleg, or headed by Oleg right? This new bunch does not have the track record earned by Oleg in my book.

Now they are nearly 1 year in, and still no look at FMs, AI, CTD, stupid DM (1 wing flying), but instead we get screens of IL-2s, and crewable tanks...

Chivas is like the last guy arguing the earth is still flat....


You do realize Oleg couldn't get it done and now Luthiers giving it a go, but their basic strategy has stayed the same.
Just because you can't see the Patch, AI, FM fixes, doesn't mean they aren't being worked on.
I'm the guy telling the earth is round, but you can't see it, so you don't believe it.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 06:47 PM

Well...party time tomorrow, pictures of a IL2, can hardly wait.
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 07:01 PM

Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
Well...party time tomorrow, pictures of a IL2, can hardly wait.



Yes that's unfortunate, not what I was hoping for. I'm sure the developer would much rather release a patch that would make everyone happy. There is little doubt in my mind that their beta testing has shown bugs they want or need to fix before releasing it to the public for testing.

That said the cockpit of the IL-2 will be interesting to look at. Maybe they will also say a few words about other progress.
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 07:11 PM

Originally Posted By: DaveP63
All of this conjecture is well and good, but what happens if this business with the crewable stuff doesn't go over? If it doesn't bring in the flood of new players and their cash because it's "too hard" or "too arcade"? Will it have been a huge waste of time and effort? Just because we assume that it will go over, doesn't mean that it will.


You have to take chances in business sometimes. The current financial situation in the genre is not good otherwise we wouldn't have to rely totally on Eastern companies to develop decent combat flight simulators. I'm hoping the new strategy of building a game engine with multiple uses will provide a substantial financial base to keep building features and addons to this combat flight sim series and future series for years.
Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 07:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Chivas
Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
Well...party time tomorrow, pictures of a IL2, can hardly wait.



Yes that's unfortunate, not what I was hoping for. I'm sure the developer would much rather release a patch that would make everyone happy. There is little doubt in my mind that their beta testing has shown bugs they want or need to fix before releasing it to the public for testing.

That said the cockpit of the IL-2 will be interesting to look at. Maybe they will also say a few words about other progress.


What would settle people down is just to know they have fixed the CTD, its much much more important than the FPS boost.
then a few words on the FM,AI and other fixes.

Then some video of the boost in FPS because so far ive noticed slow downs and stutters in the videos from the last few weeks.

But again i guess that's too much to ask...though hope springs eternal.
Posted By: DaveP63

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 09:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Chivas
Originally Posted By: DaveP63
All of this conjecture is well and good, but what happens if this business with the crewable stuff doesn't go over? If it doesn't bring in the flood of new players and their cash because it's "too hard" or "too arcade"? Will it have been a huge waste of time and effort? Just because we assume that it will go over, doesn't mean that it will.


You have to take chances in business sometimes. The current financial situation in the genre is not good otherwise we wouldn't have to rely totally on Eastern companies to develop decent combat flight simulators. I'm hoping the new strategy of building a game engine with multiple uses will provide a substantial financial base to keep building features and addons to this combat flight sim series and future series for years.


Maybe that should have been their focus from the beginning (marketing) instead of BoB simulator. At this late date, it almost feels like an afterthought whether it's been there all along or not.
Posted By: Ajay

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 11:33 PM

edited for whatever smile

at least you guys are keeping the forum alive because it basically tumbleweed city regarding anything to do with actual flying here and at 1c.
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 03/01/12 11:57 PM

Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
Originally Posted By: Chivas
Originally Posted By: BKHZ_Furbs
Well...party time tomorrow, pictures of a IL2, can hardly wait.



Yes that's unfortunate, not what I was hoping for. I'm sure the developer would much rather release a patch that would make everyone happy. There is little doubt in my mind that their beta testing has shown bugs they want or need to fix before releasing it to the public for testing.

That said the cockpit of the IL-2 will be interesting to look at. Maybe they will also say a few words about other progress.


What would settle people down is just to know they have fixed the CTD, its much much more important than the FPS boost.
then a few words on the FM,AI and other fixes.

Then some video of the boost in FPS because so far ive noticed slow downs and stutters in the videos from the last few weeks.

But again i guess that's too much to ask...though hope springs eternal.


I'm still quite sure the next patch with the increased frame rates will fix the CTD's issues etc. BlackSix said as much in one of his posts lost in pages of one of the update threads. Another BlackSix post lost in an update thread was that they will be adding a collision model to the trees eventually. They don't want to jump up and down and say they fixed anything unless they're absolutely sure. I think the first vehicle video was run on the old graphic engine and suspect the second one was too. Although everything is taking so long I'm just not sure anymore. As far as the slow downs and stutters they could have just as easily be caused by Youtube as the game engine.
Posted By: Chivas

Re: Friday update - 03/02/12 12:03 AM

Originally Posted By: DaveP63
Originally Posted By: Chivas
Originally Posted By: DaveP63
All of this conjecture is well and good, but what happens if this business with the crewable stuff doesn't go over? If it doesn't bring in the flood of new players and their cash because it's "too hard" or "too arcade"? Will it have been a huge waste of time and effort? Just because we assume that it will go over, doesn't mean that it will.


You have to take chances in business sometimes. The current financial situation in the genre is not good otherwise we wouldn't have to rely totally on Eastern companies to develop decent combat flight simulators. I'm hoping the new strategy of building a game engine with multiple uses will provide a substantial financial base to keep building features and addons to this combat flight sim series and future series for years.


Maybe that should have been their focus from the beginning (marketing) instead of BoB simulator. At this late date, it almost feels like an afterthought whether it's been there all along or not.


It may feel like an afterthought but it has been discussed for years. Its quite a complex game engine thats taking them a considerable amount of time to get right. When its finally working they should be able to start pumping out quality addons and features. Its been a tough slogg for the developers, if they can get over the hump, things could start to look up quickly.
Posted By: KRT_Bong

Re: Friday update - 03/02/12 03:46 AM

So...I have to wonder is it going to be the patch tomorrow or more vehicles to drive? Okay everybody say it with me now...,
patch, Patch, PATCH!!!
edit:
Sorry it's been a boring day
Posted By: bisher

Re: Friday update - 03/02/12 04:18 AM

I prefer biatch, biatch, biatch.....!!! smile
Posted By: FIScott

Re: Friday update - 03/02/12 06:01 AM

Originally Posted By: Icarus1
Originally Posted By: FIScott
Instead I think that the larger proportion of those daft enough to dip their toes in the toxic swamps of Cliffs of Dover forums are holding their breath for the major update that we all hope will set this game on the road to success. Anything that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to derail or delay that is an instant target for hostility.



Ok, I'm daft, but you got my interest peaked, so I went over to the toxic swamp. All I saw today was a few in denial drooling over how good it was going to be when/if the patch ever shows. Seems pretty dead over there compared to two months ago. It looks like most have given up like myself.


Firstly I'm sorry I was the cause of your going over there! CoD opinions are prety much all in the trenches and I suspect that if there is an update today and its focus is on a plane for an expansion that hasn't been announced there are going to be numerous (and often unintentionally hilarious) meltdowns from grown men whose toy plane is broke.

I'm interested to see what comes out as much as anybody (actually probably not- I haven't been up since 00.01Hrs hitting my F5 key) but it seems pretty clear to me that for the time being they can't get the game fixed and will have to tinker away until they can. In the meantime the CoD Crazies will gleefully fly their forum fighters instead.

As for me I'm really enjoying RoF at the moment.
Posted By: Nimits

Re: Friday update - 03/02/12 06:07 AM

All a I really want is a WWII flight sim game that works, where I can fly a combat career more or less as a real pilot would have. The minute CloD does that, I'm going to buy it.

But, in lieu of that at the moment, I making do with SF2 and RoF.
Posted By: theOden

Re: Friday update - 03/02/12 06:23 AM

Originally Posted By: Chivas
..if they can get over the hump, things could start to look up quickly.

I most usually disagree with you but right here we're definately on the same page.
Not sure we/they will get there seeing how some bugs return every 2nd patch but if they do get the basics straight - oh mama.
© 2024 SimHQ Forums