#2846651 - 08/23/09 04:08 PM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: PatrickAWilson]
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 548
Toadvine
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 548
Seattle
|
I will take progress on any front. Something to indicate that Neoqb plans to do good things with this product. MP, SP, a press release, don't care. This is exactly how I feel. Any progress is good progress. Keeping the sim vibrant and alive is key, whatever steps Neoqb takes in that direction will be welcome.
|
|
#2846825 - 08/23/09 10:21 PM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: Biggles07]
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 192
BigJim43
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 192
Tucson, AZ
|
This is abit off topic but SimonC if I understand your point I should be quiet because my point of view conflicts with yours??
You go on to couch your statement in some ubsurd way about fragmenting the community, the facts are that the SP folks want all the attention and any time spent on the sim in the "other" group is offensive. I see that as fragmenting the community so please do think before you post.
Your explanation of "unexpected results" vs human competition goes to the heart of the matter, in your scripted off line world you can come to know what will happen because it is "set" to happen in a certain way, I am sure the real WWI pilots would have loved that option also but thats NOT how it went.
The best depiction of any combat sim is to provide the physical world as was at the time to the best of your ability and allow the players to experience what the real pilots would have experience as close as you can (that discribes MP type of play no time wasted by the programmers trying to perfect an AI).
The problem is as always no AI can ever match (at least in this point in time) the human mind, and of course developing an offline campaigne will require alot of AI work, in addition because the AI cannot out think the human the programmer is forced to let the AI to "cheat" to be competitive, meaning he programs the AI to be deadly accurate, not subject to the same FM's as the player etc etc.
This leads to the FM complaints we see on the boards today to some degree.
Last edited by BigJim43; 08/23/09 10:24 PM.
|
|
#2846839 - 08/23/09 11:03 PM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: 2005AD]
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 423
ElAurens
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 423
USA
|
Anyone else have this scenario happen often? You think "I will play some Rise of Flight", the mouse pointer hovers over the RoF icon on your start menu/desktop. You don't click the icon because you just realised "what's the point, it is boring and has nothing fun going for it". Right now Rise of Flight has nothing going for it but potential, and potential is not the same as greatness.
Well said. My experience exactly. Even being the infamous onliner that I am, I find the rancor in this thread to be quite amazing. In the game's current state it is not good for any of us. Online or Offline. Bickering amongst ourselves serves no purpose. All of us want RoF to succeed and meet it's potential. We should direct our concerns/angst/righteous indignation at the developers, not at each other. We are not the reason that RoF is, sadly, not going to make it. The developers are the sinners here, not the faithful ones like us that voted with our wallets.
Curtiss Fan Boy.
Online as BlitzPig_EL.
|
|
#2846925 - 08/24/09 02:12 AM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: catch]
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,979
Buddye1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,979
South East,Texas,USA
|
All the ROF concerns could be easily put aside if ROF would communicate a committed plan with a schedule for us players.
Even if their plans are modest and the dates long, at least we would all know what ROF plans and the dates and then what they do not plan.
Last edited by Buddye1; 08/24/09 02:13 AM.
Intel I7 920 processor (2.66GHz, 8MB cache), 6GB DDR3 Triple Channel @1333MHz, 1.8GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 295, Sound Blaster X-Fi PCI Sound Card, Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bit , CH Fighter Stick & Pedals ,TrackIR4 Pro thanks to BobII crew.
|
|
#2846956 - 08/24/09 03:30 AM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: catch]
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 548
Toadvine
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 548
Seattle
|
Where'd that recent open letter from Neoqb's CEO go ? Very nice it was. Lovely stuff about the future of a dynamic campaign ... empty words disguised as an olive branch ? I'm embarrassed to admit I was seduced by the hype and eye candy that promised so much ....
I don't understand this post. The letter was posted several weeks ago, are you saying that between then and now you expected a dynamic compaign? The devs go out of their way to explain their current status with RoF and their plans they have for the future and you see this as empty words? Some kind of seduction?
|
|
#2847045 - 08/24/09 10:29 AM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: catch]
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 259
SimonC
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 259
North of England
|
BigJim
"This is abit off topic but SimonC if I understand your point I should be quiet because my point of view conflicts with yours??"
No, you're entirely at liberty to state your POV, as are all other people; I'm simply asking that you consider the wider circumstances concerning sales, players, their personal arrangements - which will inevitably impact on how they play the game and being cognisant of where we as WWI simmers currently are.
"You go on to couch your statement in some ubsurd way about fragmenting the community, the facts are that the SP folks want all the attention and any time spent on the sim in the "other" group is offensive. I see that as fragmenting the community so please do think before you post."
Actually, if you read carefully many of the posts made above, you'll note two things: the first is that SP players aren't demanding exclusive attention - most are simply pointing out that ROF is not particuarly well developed in terms of SP, yet it is the MP ROF community that appears to be making a disproportionate amount of noise. The second is that many SP afficionados are actually saying that, since MP will be easier to sort out, NeoQB should put their immediate efforts into that direction. That strikes me as an emollient gesture indeed.
Thus, I was wondering on what basis you claim that SP people want all the time and attention? Certainly, the impression I've gained is that those preferring SP are quite clear that SP will be difficult and lenghty to fix, and far from demanding NewQB's wholehearted seem to be more concerned with the overall fate of the game. Hardly divisive behaviour.
|
|
#2847118 - 08/24/09 02:30 PM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: catch]
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,686
rabu
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,686
California, USA
|
Catch, you remember right, though not from Jason's link. I too have been following KOTS and ROF from the beginning and I distinctly remember several conversations about the possibility of a dynamic campaign, but it was never brought up by the devs as a goal, only as answers of the possibility being there.
They may still have plans down the road, but I don't think it's really a high priority or an objective and I wonder if it's even possible when all the computing power is going into flight model nuances and elaborate damage models, etc. I'm guessing that their plan was that players would create enough scripted missions to keep others happy and it probably will for many who are drawn more to the limited experience of just flying and dog fights with out the whole other side of the historical involvement with a participating time line.
rabu ...[|8~'
Windows 7 64bit Intel Core i7 3.4GHZ Quad-Core Gigabyte GA-Z68A LGA1155 MOB G.Skill Ripjaws 16gb DDR3 1600 SDRAM XFX GeForce GTS250 1gb w/22" LCD 1680x1050 32x dpi96 SB X-Fi audio card OCZ ZT 650W PSU 3 WD 7200rpm 3GB/Sec SATA drives
|
|
#2847295 - 08/24/09 07:22 PM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: rabu]
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,188
Mahoney
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,188
Twickenham, London, UK
|
I wonder if [a dynamic campaign's] even possible when all the computing power is going into flight model nuances and elaborate damage models, etc I would expect a well designed dynamic campaign to require hardly any processing power during a mission; it's WWI, once you've established the conditions at the start of the mission and some triggers that will prompt events during it, you don't need to be running the dynamic campaign in the background whilst the player is flying like they had to with F4. I would expect the vast majority of the processing to occur prior to hitting the flight simulation bit, leaving the computer free to manage the flight and damage models whilst the player is flying. Even then I wouldn't expect it to be a particularly processor intensive process; the complicated bit is working out workably realistic rules for dynamism, and a database & engine format that allows the player to start in a historically accurate setting for an arbitrarily chosen date but then have a persistent history diverge with them from then on. Which is a very interesting programming problem; I had a brief crack at a prototype about 7 years ago, but never really solved it.
|
|
#2847322 - 08/24/09 08:00 PM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: jasonbirder]
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 192
BigJim43
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 192
Tucson, AZ
|
What are you offliners afraid of?? If your arguments are so solid whats to worry if they give us MP guys a reliable DF server where we can join anytime and play? The issue is that development time and resources is finite...so resources devoted to development of the MP aspect of a sim inevitably are resources that AREN'T devoted to improving the SP aspect of the Sim... As overwhelming evidence across all games, genres and platforms points to SP gamers making up the VAST majority of the customer base, is it small wonder that SP gamers feel neglected when valuable development time is devoted to improving on-line multi-play for a tiny (but very vocal) minority of players... As time and time again it is proven that most product purchases are made by people who will never ever venture online...(and in more traditional delivery models, may never get as far as even downloading game patches) is it really too much to ask for that the product delivers a completed and satisfying single player experience? Well SimonC here is one example in this thread I am sure there are others,
|
|
#2847521 - 08/25/09 03:56 AM
Re: Long Overdue Interview with neoqb
[Re: Mahoney]
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,686
rabu
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,686
California, USA
|
I wonder if [a dynamic campaign's] even possible when all the computing power is going into flight model nuances and elaborate damage models, etc I would expect a well designed dynamic campaign to require hardly any processing power during a mission; it's WWI, once you've established the conditions at the start of the mission and some triggers that will prompt events during it, you don't need to be running the dynamic campaign in the background whilst the player is flying like they had to with F4. I would expect the vast majority of the processing to occur prior to hitting the flight simulation bit, leaving the computer free to manage the flight and damage models whilst the player is flying. Even then I wouldn't expect it to be a particularly processor intensive process; the complicated bit is working out workably realistic rules for dynamism, and a database & engine format that allows the player to start in a historically accurate setting for an arbitrarily chosen date but then have a persistent history diverge with them from then on. Which is a very interesting programming problem; I had a brief crack at a prototype about 7 years ago, but never really solved it. I thought that the number of events happening around one as they fly, as well as the animated objects involved in them is pretty draining on the computer resources. They would all be tied into an historical data base, and I can see how that in itself wouldn't be restrictive, just the events around one that are triggered? The subject of the dynamic campaign is a whole other, very interesting subject in itself. Would like to hear more about your experience and opinions on it, maybe a new thread on it? I tend to not like the idea of a player influencing the history around one. In OFF they decided to not even allow important, historical aces to die till their actual date of death, but you can fight them and possibly kill them in an encounter. I agree, it's extremely complex, but it sure adds a lot to a sim, however it's done and I hope it will be possible for ROF to develop a dynamic campaign, but I really have doubts about it.
rabu ...[|8~'
Windows 7 64bit Intel Core i7 3.4GHZ Quad-Core Gigabyte GA-Z68A LGA1155 MOB G.Skill Ripjaws 16gb DDR3 1600 SDRAM XFX GeForce GTS250 1gb w/22" LCD 1680x1050 32x dpi96 SB X-Fi audio card OCZ ZT 650W PSU 3 WD 7200rpm 3GB/Sec SATA drives
|
|
|
|