It's amateur hour (where's my cookie as that is what I stated months ago )

It's apparent that this lash-up of 1CGS from 1C and 777 was one of bailing wire and chewing gum made under the most optimistic assumptions with little in the way of "battle drills" and contingency planning.

They are strictly in the "react to contact mode" after having been stunned by the market reception and the dissolution of their optimistic assumptions (both stated and culturally implied --- for the latter see Putinsim )

It is however providing great entertainment and making the previous CloD fiasco of an early release of an overly ambitious effort look like an act of Giants by comparison

It's not been handled very well that's for sure

It is entertaining though.

More so than the game itself.

It's disappointing, I think there are still customers out there like me who hope they can turn a corner here and listen to their customers, it's a slim hope but there is something worth saving if only they could show a little humility and reverse some of the crazy design decisions.

Agree, I would consider myself in that group as well.

No, I still think CloD was worse because it took just as long between its release and final patch (which still left things incomplete) as BoS did its entire development, well almost.

CloD I think had a superior design philosophy marred by subpar execution, something which may or may not be laid on the shoulders of its leads, hard to know. Perhaps they had a plan that needed budget X and they only had 1/2 X so it was doomed from the get-go. It's a little like asking a kindergarten class to build a 777 that can actually fly with hundreds of people on board. They over-reached by a LOT.

BoS I think aside from some minor bits had excellent execution insofar as they made what they wanted to make almost on schedule and it works properly. The problem was the design, a little like getting Da Vinci to paint your room all white. They aimed low, and made it, without actually asking if that low bar was where we looking for them to aim.

In both cases the product is salvageable with more work. In CloD's case, TF's mods are doing a good job of giving us what I was picturing when Oleg announced SoW:BoB (which BTW is what I think it should be renamed again when TF is done). In BoS', I'm not sure it requires all that much work or not, it just requires the will to go that route, and I'm NOT sanguine about those chances.



The Jedi Master

I think you nailed it with that paragraph. Perfectly.

BOS was by far the easierr project, building content on an existing DX 9 game engine. COD was creating a new DX10/11 game engine along with building content for that engine. I still believe that BOS will eventually create a decent sim, if IC doesn't pull the rug out from underneath them. That said, IC made a huge error in judgement, backing a DX9 game engine, although I think politics got in the way of sound judgement.

More likely going for a quick buck after CoD, and I'm not convinced its worked out for them.

I hate some of the design choices that were made with BoS.
For me as a mainly offline player it does not have much to make me want to play it at the moment, so I'm still on the fence.
Having said that, it still has shown me moments of beauty, as graphically it is hard to beat.
I still hold out hope that things will change, (new summer maps coming, release of the ME, hopefully a new theatre at some stage)...
The one positive is the quashing of the unlocks... that makes no difference to me, but I'm glad it will have an impact for the MP guys

Oh, and of course the skin viewer and the ability to use custom historical skins is a bonus as well..

Actually, in retrospect it's not they aimed low and didn't ask us. They clearly saw what people wanted. They made rational explanations for why some things like clickable cockpits weren't included. Then they threw in things that no flight sim before has had with some mumbled excuse about how other games have them and showed surprise when people got upset that it was not what they were expecting, simultaneously cutting corners on things like the campaign. They aimed low and were perfectly happy for us to assume they'd aimed higher, then felt hurt when we reacted negatively when we finally saw where the aim was.

This is why I accused Jason of lying--because I STILL can't believe he's stupid enough to sign off on a design like this with all his years of experience on ROF.
Why he would get all hot under the collar about accusing him of lying for taking total responsibility for the decision puzzles me. Everyone lies about one thing or another, some small, some large, all for different reasons. I don't expect him to come clean on it, most people won't unless the evidence is presented to them, but I also don't adversely blame him for it.

To put it another way, IMO this is the difference between saying "Well, either he's willing to run stop signs or he's a child molester" and him coming back with "I NEVER run stop signs! Traffic laws are important! How could people accuse me of running stop signs after everything I've done..."

I can accept someone who runs a stop sign or two because the roads are empty or they're under stress or whatever, lots of people have done it, but I can't accept a child molester--NO ONE should.

I can accept Jason lying for various reasons, but not him making this design. It's as big a betrayal to the serious sim community, that he's spent years among and knows well, as it would be to the child's parents. But hey, he thinks being called a liar is awful but accused of stupidity can go without comment? He'll defend himself against a simple lying accusation but not defend an absurd design. Whatever. Perhaps that says something right there.




The Jedi Master

Be careful with your analogies, the usual suspects will appear to discredit you for calling Jason a child molester conveniently ignoring the fact you didn't just like the drug analogy some months ago.

it's ok, say what you like about Jason and the devs, they will be too busy micro analysing something I say to create an excuse for a tirade.

Yes, it's hard to get meaningful information when people have reading comprehension issues. Did all these people on the internet fail those classes in their youth? Or is it purposefully done, to cherry pick something in your response they feel comfortable and/or fired up to reply to while ignoring the rest which already deflates or deflects it before they've even begun.

READ what is written.
UNDERSTAND what was written.
Reply based on THAT.

DO NOT read 24% of the words (either the beginning or end or maybe randomly skip around) and assume that's enough.
DO NOT project a hyperbolic position onto those words (due to not having read them all) that really has little to do with the meaning of what was written.
DO NOT proceed to forcefully argue against a position that was presented by no one.
DO NOT presume that the successful prosecution of said erroneous argument now discredits the original when it had little or nothing to do with it.

You want to skim something because you're in a TL;DR mood? Fine, just don't reply to it. It's like reviewing a movie after watching the 2.5 minute trailer--you're not qualified.
Of course, I've also seen the cop-out "I know you've defeated my argument, but I'll get around it by claiming TL;DR and make another jab that you already discredited".




The Jedi Master

But why even bring up child molesting...if you cannot get your point across without using that...well ..???

It IS in very poor taste

unless you WANT to come across as a Sunday tabloid

Cheers Dakpilot

You just proved the previous posters point.

No I think you just proved his point about reading comprehension...

Cheers Dakpilot

Let me break it down for you....and try to get 'child molesting' out of your mind.

He could have used any number of things, he certainly was not reliant on the specifics of the ones he chose, it is a metaphor if you like.

You however seized upon the opportunity to highlight the irrelevant metaphor used as the main case for your argument.

I could've said "he's either a cable stealer or Hitler" or "he's either someone who leaves no tips at a restaurant or the head of ISIS" or any number of other comparisons about how he showed outrage at what to me is a far lesser offense and then ignored the greater one totally.

Yet you want to protest the analogy for being in poor taste?

Here's a fact: it's in far less poor taste than assuming that the Il-2/CloD/ROF crowd would like the "design" he is proudly taking responsibility for.

Jason's design was in very poor taste and comes across as the product of a Sunday tabloid. How's that?




The Jedi Master